 There have been many versions of capitalism, and the current iteration we're in is generally sort of the Friedman capitalism, which is the 1970s Friedman doctrine, and it already sort of acknowledged that as externalities were a thing, but the explicit instruction was that businessmen should not worry about externalities just about profits. Well, that didn't make the negative externalities go away, but we know that negative externalities are a thing, and we should be doing something about them, and I think there's this growing recognition of that. So generally, when we talk about impact capitalism, it's not like a fully flushed doctrine. I'm not pretending that, and any of us, I don't think we're pretending, we're like have it figured out at like an economics sort of noble price level, but we're saying that the organizing system seems to be good. Generally, we're like talking about the same principles of like supply, demand, human motivation, being driven by greed and often self-interest. We're just trying to say that we can use those mechanisms and create those micro-experiments and create incentive structures that will use exactly the mechanisms of capitalism to drive the type of positive change we want, and it sounds, and I think the carbon credits market are like one, and there's more examples, but that's an example where like that seems to be working, that like we have created something where it sort of still feeds into the very typical capitalist engine, but it generates positive externalities, and there's more examples like that. So that's kind of the idea for today. Other speakers will explore their experiments and their approaches. Most people are early, this is a long-term vision, yeah, it's possible to change the system and that's why we're here. So, Kueh Mai, I'm an entrepreneur with some successes and some failures on my account. I'm a founding partner of Venture Fund called 50 Years. It's been, this is kind of how I've been portrayed, but I'm also a burner and a very physical active person, and that's kind of how I prefer to think of myself, and I think I'm much more interested in sort of the, that sort of dynamic approach to life, and I think there's a lot of creative energy that comes from that. So, why 50 Years? We'll just run through that, we don't have that much time. So, 50 Years is named after Winston Churchill's essay from 1931, it was called 50 Years Hence, and you don't have to read the essay, although you should because it's amazing, but generally the TLDR is we can extrapolate from today into the future. Scientists and technologies will have an outside impact on how the world looks. He thought that in 1931 already, sort of beyond even politicians, and then the second part of the essay is pretty much talking about the sort of responsibility that comes with power. And so, our experiment is sort of simple and then I'll go to kind of the broader vision of it. So, it's a precedency VC firm started in 2016 by two or I come down to an alumni entrepreneur myself and said, say right there, we started with a tiny fund of four, I mean for a venture fund it's tiny, a little over four million, essentially emptying our bank accounts and asking all the friends from tech to give us the money. And then the other funds have been bigger and you've grown the team and we've been at it for a few years right now. So, our theory of change has been that we want to back impactful early stage founders. And then the question is why? So, you can focus on many interventions when you're trying to drive change but obviously comes from cognitive bias of being startup founders but startup tend to be incredible vessels for change. They align incentives very well, there's equity sharing in the team, it's sort of the process of getting money is relatively streamlined right now in the startup ecosystem and generally startup has speed. So, we've all seen in the sort of non-impact world a team that starts very small and then within a few years sort of scales globally and has some impact and then why wouldn't that impact be positive? So, one of the first lessons we learned two or three years into what we're doing is that deep tech is really where we can have more impact and specifically translation which is the process of spinning out from academia and helping more companies in deep tech companies get established is like how we can actually drive more of the type of innovation we want. So, some of the slides are long so you can pause if you're looking at online or it's going to be uploaded so don't worry too much about reading them but generally speaking, these are the reasons why deep tech is where we should be looking. If we knew, if there were easy solutions the general assumptions like if there were easy solutions to the big problems we all see and get frustrated by and suffer from those easy solutions would have been deployed. So, generally you have to develop something that hasn't existed before, you have to commercialize it, governments are bad at innovation, there can be better at distribution, tech entrepreneurship in deep tech is where a lot of positive change can come from. It's also extremely impactful to help those deep tech companies sort of spun out of academia and that's a messy process and we have been spending a lot of time on that. So, we also learn money is not enough as you mean, the money is sort of abundant in the early stage ecosystems like support is extremely important and the type of support we provide actually has been extremely hopefully meaningful and we see that there's so much more we can do. So, why support is important because it's much harder to commercialize if you think of like novel therapeutics, if you think of a new communication, new satellite communication stack, if you think of clean chemicals or like things that can sequester carbon from the atmosphere, like it's not just sort of building what I've done before B2B SaaS tool and like you know kind of it's the level of complexity, it's much harder in the level of coordination and the funding stack you need to get it's much harder. So, those people just need, those founders need more support. And yeah, so we, early stage investors and like us and many other in this ecosystem can be extremely helpful. One thing we notice is extremely important to identify the people who are mission aligned in the first place, because it's very easy to pivot when things get hard and things get hard almost always. So, generally speaking, when you think of like the Venn diagram of what we do, it's the big problems, a billion revenue potential, deep tech. So essentially, you know, the Mr. Burns here is something that we use in this thing we call Mr. Burns test. It's like, you know, for now the types of companies we back, we wanna make sure they sort of can, they pass this test, which is, you know, with a greedy sort of prototypical sort of capitalist of Mr. Burns driven only by his self interest, pick, you know, a company or a service because it's, you know, better, cheaper and more convenient to him. So like, we ultimately believe, like there's some kick starting and helping for those types of projects and companies in the beginning, but like they will never scale and have like the type of global impact that like we are all looking for if they don't have sort of a sustainable engine of sort of revenue or some sort of commercial flywheel. So yeah, in the current phase, we look a lot like a normal VC and we seem to know what we're doing. I think I've just like five or six or seven years in, like I think we have a good grip on this and it's been a learning curve. Oh, but the longer term vision, which is really the exciting one and that's what drives us is to like, how do we take the learnings from what we're doing and like how do we scale it to move humanity to a better economic system and like here, you know, this is hard. Everyone here is trying to think about that. We don't have all the answers. We have some learnings and some experiments that we're designing. So the four phases of 50 years, there's going to be a lot of text again, pause on YouTube and don't try to maybe jump through it. The first phase, which it's sort of behind us is the product market fit. Can we do this? Can we help? Is there a need for that? And then what can we learn from this essentially? So, and this is how we learn with deep tech and have more impact. This is why we decided with Fun2 and Fun3 to refocus on deep tech. This is why we realized like, oh, there should be even more companies spinning out. Why aren't there more companies spinning out? Oh, there's like things we can do and we'll talk about in a second. And then supporting founders can be extremely impactful. So then phase two is scaling operations and then focusing on deep tech. And we don't have to go through all the details, but we've learned that like this is the part when like we like to really, you know, support the scale of what we're trying to do and we need to scale our operations and like there's been a lot of focus on that in the last two years, which I'll talk about in a second. And then there's a ton of the sort of big levers which sort of maybe sound simple is as much sort of access to fundraising, operational support, also storytelling, events and helping with communication. And then people, one of the biggest learnings as well is people get distracted with easy money. And in terms of how capitalism transitions to this more sort of positive impact phase is that we need to actually kind of recreate incentive designs. So like if we don't find a way, you know, think carbon credits market, if we don't find some of those like loops and mechanisms, then I think it will be hard to have impact at scale. And then so phase three, which we're sort of like in phase two, looking into phase three is to develop scalable tools to identify and measure and support impact both for the early stage and like maybe looking also for the slightly later stage, specifically tech entrepreneurship, that's what we're going to focus on. And then help create markets and incentive structures. And this is where we're talking with protocol apps and this is how we're participating in those discussions because there's like things that can be done. And then obviously for everyone in attending, I'm sure funding the comments like phase four for many organizations will be to kind of merge this approach with master branch of the global financial system. Okay, so some experiments that I will just run through because I have just a few minutes and you'll have to just bear with me. We run events, connecting investor scientists and repeat entrepreneurs to see if they can like start new companies and not in just gaming or marketing automation, but on things that are really important. Some areas of events that we run, we run a translation podcast where we like will help scientists talk about their papers and their work and the potential for translation. We try to like help sort of uncover some of the potential for translation there. We run programs for PhDs to help them understand the world of investing. And we also run a community of 50 50, which is the community of North America's top 50 researchers to like with this hypothesis that like community is often what's missing and also sort of getting them on the entrepreneurial path and that's been fairly successful in terms of like company creation actually entrepreneurs spinning out. We're working on a spin out playbook which essentially we're saying, it's so easy to start a Delaware company. It's so easy to like sign a safe and get some money in, why combinators are safe as a financial fundraising standard. Why isn't there a standard for spinning out? And like why do people have to like negotiate and they don't know the terms. It's like asymmetry of negotiations. A lot of this could be massively impactful, very hard because there's many different systems at university systems and tech transfer offices but you know, this is something we're very excited about for scaling this vision and for helping much more innovation, important innovation to happen. We had a failed experiment of a physical lab space in LA which we're going to repeat probably because it was mostly failed. It was because of the reasons why it failed but like, you know, there's been a bunch of different experiments of like what is needed for this ecosystem? How can we ecosystem for how can we enable more change? So some of the results we backed, you know, 44 PhD founders and we have 22 PhD CEOs. These are like just from our founder community. This is like kind of the caliber of the people we're talking about. Some of them are really incredible. We have a Nobel Prize winning co-founder. So we've backed some of these amazing companies. These are some numbers over here of, you know, fund right now we backed over nine companies. The next company we'll end up partnering with will be the hundred companies over 200 founders. We have multiple deep tech unicorns in the sort of clean chemical space and satellite connectivity space and in like many other areas. There's reputation flables which we're already experiencing when it's easier for us to attract the type of people interested in. We have amazing investors who are actually really, you know, 44 founders of billion dollar tech companies have backed us. So we like to say we're like, this like founders all the way down. So it's, you know, it's been working in many ways. Protocol Apps team asked me to like talk about why, which public goods this approach is good or bad for and actually like just going through like the types of public goods. I think whether directly or indirectly it can be pretty much good for anything just because pretty much anything that the governments do has to come from somewhere. Governments do not do tech development. So like when we kind of acknowledge that they have to buy it from somewhere and pay it for it and including the, even like democracy itself, which relies on, you know, the independent press and sort of ad-free press. When you think of sub-stack, this is really their vision. It can be used for anything. So yeah, we have some unsolved problems. For example, we're still trying to uncover how to commercialize even more scientific research and make it easier for people to spin out. You know, as I mentioned that already, that we have the Delaware C Corp standard of starting a company where it's pretty much like, you don't have to get lawyers involved to get your incorporation documents done. And like, yes, everybody thinks, yeah, of course we don't, but like at some point that was not the case and that was like much more painful and now we can use like Stripe Atlas and some of those tools. And then the innovation of, first the VCA sort of funding documents and then the, why Combinator is safe. Created a standard for like, what a protocol for fundraising is. And like, you know, right now it's not uncommon that, you know, we talk to a founder, we have a handshake, we confirm it over email, the same as a safe, we wire the money within an hour, right? How much easier is that? And like how much more like, you know, A, they get the money, which is obviously extremely important. And then it just like, they don't have to run the like cycles of like, who do I talk to? Who's the lawyers? And then like negotiating, like all that BS that like nobody really wants, that does not exist for tech transfers. Like if we could have that, you know, this is one of the big things that like, if any of you have been thinking of and of any of you watching that talk have been thinking of like, this is, we should talk about that because we're trying to, yeah, we really want to solve that. You know, the other challenges is definitely like, in terms of liquid returns, it take a long time. So it's, you know, it's like harder to have a massive, massive operations team, which again drives operational efficiency and like productization of some of what we're doing, but like definitely that's like, you know, if we're talking about like, what are some of the unsolved approaches to this, that's definitely the things that's on our mind. And yeah, it's, we would love to see, yeah, the, you know, we have seen and we have inspired other firms to do this. And this is really our goal. Like if you want to start a venture fund, start doing exactly what you're doing, please do, we can help you. There needs to be so many more sort of local firms that can focus on different areas of tech, deep tech and specializing and sort of having like this ethos and hopefully helping solve important problems through that or at least creating the pipeline of innovation that then could be distributed to solve some of the problems. And yeah, we're excited about the, some of the talks today about impact certificates because this definitely, you know, we see some of the, we see already that there is going to be, you know, for all the climate tech companies that we've backed and we've backed quite a few. Like they will be able to use, right now they're in like the technology validation assessment stage. Some of those companies are generating revenue, but it takes time to get certified. So, but hopefully that can be brought into the present, but in other areas of sort of positive impact, there isn't a way to essentially get additional revenue or credibility. Yeah, so I think the impact certificate work could be extremely impactful. So anyone working in impact certificate work, I mean, I know some of you, some of you, but if also talk to us like how this could be, how this could be used in an early stage ecosystem. Yeah, and I think this is kind of all I have. I'm very, I'm sorry, I sprinted through it, but this is kind of the time I have. Thank you so much.