 We have a little time left, unfortunately, but let's turn to the audience for questions. We'll gather up questions and let's start over here. Mike, please. Please stay to who you are and your question and please make it a question and brief. Hi, thank you very much. My name is Randy. I come from Paris and I study at Le Carte des Minnes, which is a public policy program, basically. Thank you very much for your talk. And most of you have mentioned the challenge of trust and indeed since the last financial crisis, we've seen a crisis of trust in the monetary system and the rise of ICOs, cryptocurrencies. And my question is, do you believe that such technologies are more as a threat or an opportunity for the existing system and especially should we regulate them more or should we leave them as they are? Thank you very much. Thank you. Over here. I thank you very much. That's almost I'm an MBA professor from Japan. Fascinating debate, but I'm completely amateur. But the one issue I like to ask Mr. Horizan, you talked about something very interesting, independence of central bank from domestic or international pressures. But I think most of central banks have become hostage to the government needs to reinvent economy, all sorts of things. But if you may, if you pick up top three, most independent central bank in the world, and why? Thank you. Final question over here. Thank you. Falka Parrot is from Germany. Totally naive question by someone who doesn't understand anything about monetary policy. Would I be totally wrong in assuming that there has never been a hegemonic or reserve currency that wasn't backed up by a very strong military force? I've learned a lot about what the reasons are for the hegemonic position of the dollar, but the military was never mentioned. So I'm just asking that. And if it is not totally wrong, what would that mean for the future of the monetary system, particularly if the euro wants to get in? Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anybody want to comment on the crypto issue? John Clark. Very simple. I would say that it is not the absence of trust in the existing currency, which has created the trial on the cryptocurrencies. I think it's technology. Technology is galloping so rapidly that with a number of fantastic innovation, it appeared that you could run payments and transactions at a very low cost with blockchain and so forth. So it seems to me that it is something which is quite natural. I don't interpret that as an absence of trust for traditional currencies. And as far as trust is concerned, the Bitcoin you could see goes up and down, up and down. That was more of a speculative instrument. The try to launch a basket digital then proves that you have to be backed by those traditional currencies that are behind. Elaine, you wanted this? Yes. I think one has to be careful to distinguish between cryptocurrencies and in particular, the blockchain technologies like Bitcoin or Ethereum, which have to do with proof of work, which in my view are totally harmful and have zero essentially public good aspect to them. Why are they zero public good? They're very bad medium of exchange because the transaction costs are extraordinarily high from an energy point of view. For environmental impact is absolutely disastrous. They don't solve any problem. I mean, we have pretty good medium of exchange with one exception, I will talk about that in a second, but these things are used to mostly for the dark net. So I would say it's negative from the social welfare point of view and these things should be for sure not connected to the official system and essentially regulated out. That's very different from digital currencies. Central banks could issue digital currencies and this is absolutely fine and some central banks are very far along with that. Now, why is there some kind of need maybe to have some digital currencies or to make some improvement for cross-border transactions? We are still not doing very well. We are doing extremely well for transaction within the URL, we have extremely good technology, et cetera, but for cross-border payment, there are still too much of fees which are taken there by the financial system and as a result there are some private actor which may come in. Last thing I want to say about that, one has to distinguish between the technology to do this cross-border transaction and the willingness to create a new currency such as the Libra. Technology can be good. Willingness to create a private currency in my view that again should be looked at extremely carefully because what does the currency provide? I mean a public currency issued by central banks. We use it for macro-policy stabilization and we are careful about financial stability. What is the goal of a private company? Profitability. The public good dimension there is absolutely not there. So we have to be extremely careful with that and distinguish between technology and creating a new currency. Is somebody, an economic historian among us have a comment on the military? Of course military influences play a big role. No question about this but I think what really happened after the Second World War II is the fact that the dollar was the only currency which can be converted into goods. And the convertibility nowadays plays a big role in international transactions. But if there's no convertibility into goods, meaning that you cannot buy what you want on your, when you possess the currency, it would not help you with any military forces. Thank you, Jeff. There actually is a connection between the two questions because what makes a currency valuable or valid international payments is the ability of those using it to turn it into real goods and services. And that's why Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are purely speculative. Their value is only based on what people think their value will be in the future. No one stands behind it. Frequent-flier miles have more trust than Bitcoin because at least American Airlines and United stand behind frequent-flier miles. The military angle is related in the sense that military power is connected to the ability of a government to mobilize resources. And so there's a direct connection between military and broader geopolitical power and the expectation that the government will be willing and able to stand behind the currency. After all, there's trust in the Swiss franc and its stability, but the country is way too small to exercise the kind of power necessary to provide an international currency, that is, the resources to act as a lender of last resort and provide this public good function that people have been talking about. I can already, did you have a final comment? Yeah, well, before commenting on the central bank's independence, let me see a few words on each alternative to the dollar. First, to Jean Claude. Eurus market is thinner, as I said. I was a reserve manager of Japan. When I tried to buy $500 million Trezor or Bunzma, Bunz by one shot, that action would move quotations. You know, that's counterproductive. But JJB, U.S. Trezors. So if you have joint markets, no such effects. Okay. Reminbi, even Chinese want to get a Chinese currency to place their wealth outside the country. How can you, you know, can foreigners believe in the integrity of Reminbi? Simple. SDR has no client base at all because international investors, they can create their own baskets of currency. If you are a small investor, you're tied to your home currency. But no one is interested in the currency basket, SDR. Until now. Until now, until now, okay. Now, central bank independence. Yeah, it's a long story. It will take hours. Yes, exactly. I could perhaps answer him biologically. Okay, final word. I would put the ECB in the three, most independent central bank. Because the question was, what are the three most independent? Very good. Okay, well, thanks very much to the panel. They think we can, let me draw a brief conclusion. Very simple. One, you heard the old adage, you can't fight something with nothing. And right now, there's a something, it's the US dollar, and there's nothing else ready now. So a sense that for now, the state, the system will remain dollar-centric. A sense that there are lots of reasons to wonder if it could be remained this way in the future. But unclear exactly where that leads. It's not obvious what will happen. Mark Carney in his speech quoted Rudy Dornbush, like your new Rudy Dornbush of MIT, is saying, changes usually take longer than you ever imagined until they actually occur when they happen faster than you thought possible. Could happen here, but Rudy, wonderful as he was, was not a very good policy predictor. Thank you all, and thanks to our panelists. Thank you.