 What is carbon vote? Basically, it is a gauge for human consensus. It collects information and opinions from the community, usually for blockchain governance-related issues. We are a decentralized team from the Chinese community. I am from StoneLager, which is a consortium implementation of Ethereum that connects and compatible to Chinese legal system. So we have both outside, so if you are interested enough to learn more, come to us. And other teams, members from Constance Labs, Group Ape, and ETHFans. So I think we have all our members here today. So guys, if you are here, would you please stand up and say hello to everybody? Daniel from Constance Lab did most of the heavy lift. He built the website within like three days. So yeah, thank you, Daniel. So at StoneLager, at the carbon vote, we believe in people. We think machine serves human and carbon over silicon. That's why we are called carbon vote, not silicon vote. So human comes first, right? We are based on carbon and machines. Computers are based on silicon. So our goal is to reach consensus from the community in an efficient way. So when it comes to consensus, we think there are two layers of it. The underneath layer is the machine consensus. And the upper layer is human consensus. The machine layer refers to consensus mechanisms like proof of work and a proof of stake, while human consensus is more closely related to blockchain governance. And often it comes with soft forks and hard forks. We firmly believe that machine consensus is just a tool for human consensus. Its main purpose is to facilitate for the human consensus. So that's what we did with the carbon vote. I guess many of you have seen this photo here. During the debate of the hard fork, we did a poll from a community to measure whether the community wants a hard fork or not. So basically, there are two addresses. One is a yes address and the other is no address. If you want to vote for yes, you simply send a zero ether transaction to the yes address. And all your ether in your local account would be casted to the yes voting. By doing so, we lowered both technical bearing and the mental bearing. Because here, you do not need to send the ethers out. And your ether is not locked in any means. So in the end, we got about 5% of total ether voted. And 87% of them voted for yes. So what we learned, we found that consensus enforcement is very hard. In the real world, decisions are enforced by violence. While in our world, crypto world, everybody is free to choose on what blockchain to live on. I do believe we have a better world, but we've got to split with the coexistence of ETC. The space is in terms of price, talents, and resources. If you look at the price of ETC, it has been hovering around 10% to 20% of ETH. And it's pretty consistent with the voting results. About future plans, we think there is something suitable to vote, and the other are not. Community-wise, they can affect issues are probably worth a voting. Yes or no to controversial hard folks and soft folks and fundamental overhauls like POS and other wide effect issues like whether or not to charge a rent for smart contracts instead of charge for a big chunk of a fee in the beginning and let the smart contract live forever. And there's something that we think is not suitable for voting. Something too technical and something not essential enough to work our time. So to wrap up, blockchain governance is really hard and the voting results are not likely enforceable, even with the supermajority support. So in that sense, deal with caution. And that's all I want to see. And I look forward to see you on blockchain and make a carbon vote, make your voice heard. Thank you.