 Marius asks, have you heard about Vitalik's new proposal to impose gas fees on wallet transactions to fund developers? What is this about? Strictly speaking, this is a bit off topic, but I'll answer it quickly. There is a proposal in the Ethereum community that was started by Vitalik to have, as a common practice, not as a rule of the protocol, not as a rule imposed by consensus, but simply as a common practice. Have every wallet impose a slight fee on every transaction, a voluntary fee, that funds developers in the protocol, or at least funds wallet development. This is something that also happens in Bitcoin. There are wallets where, when you make a transaction, you have the option to make a donation or add a small fee that goes to the wallet developers. Usually, that's done with a payment channel. Sometimes it's done with a straight Bitcoin transaction. In Lightning wallets, it's done again with a payment channel. This isn't different in any way. Vitalik proposed to make this part of the best practices so that the development of wallet software is better funded. This is a problem in many blockchains. Wallets represent the cutting edge, the front-end of user interface development. A feature that is designed into the protocol or the consensus layer, for example, doesn't become active until a wallet can use it and exposes that to users in a way that's intuitive. Even though something may be available, let's take an example. In Bitcoin, for example, native Segwit addresses that start with VC1. Have you seen one of those? You probably haven't. Why? Because probably about 80% of wallets don't yet implement them. Only a few wallets implement them at the moment. Even though that feature has existed now for more than six months in the base protocol, its implementation in wallets is still lagging. This is a problem across all blockchains, and the problem is that wallets are not very well-funded. Most wallets are available for free, and they have to make money by advertising, by selling other services and things like that. That's Vitalik's proposal, better funded wallets, better developed wallets, through a mechanism of voluntary fees that are added to transactions. Steven asks, should we consider the number of dApps on a blockchain, the number of commits on the code, the blockchain activity, and the peer-to-peer account numbers of cryptos as valid performance indicators? It really depends on what you're trying to achieve. Performance indicators tell you something about the blockchain, but they also tell you a lot about the person who chose the performance indicators. If I look at which performance indicators you're interested in, I will be able to tell what's important to you in terms of a blockchain. Is it important as an investment? Is it something where you're looking for future increases in value? Are you looking at performance metrics that tell you whether it is sufficiently decentralized, or whether it is actively developed, showing a lot of innovation in the community, etc? No, it depends. If you're a trader, if you're a developer, if you're interested in the technology, if you're interested in it as an investment, or as part of your portfolio, you're going to choose different metrics. It depends really on what you consider good performance, what is the best blockchain, which depends on what you're trying to do with it. I've talked about this in the past, which is that we all have different metrics for success. To me, for example, the blockchain that has the most money invested into it isn't necessarily the most interesting blockchain. If that blockchain is centralized and run by a bank, of course it has lots of money invested into it. That's what banks have, lots of money. That doesn't make it the blockchain that delivers the most freedom, or the most political empowerment, or the most economic inclusion to people. It does not develop the most innovation. Those metrics are more important to me than other metrics. In general, however, it's difficult in many cases to measure these things accurately. What does it mean to look at the number of commits? How do you value code based on metrics of commits? What if a lot of these commits are changing the spelling of words and comments? Or do you count lines? What if it's written in a more expressive language, where you need fewer lines? Does that mean it's a less valid project? Probably the opposite. If you write your project in assembly, then your commits will have a lot of line changes. That doesn't make it any better. It just means the language you're using is more verbose and less expressive. It's really difficult to pick any kind of metric. In fact, in this industry, we see a lot of people trying to attach themselves to certain metrics, or argue certain metrics. Really, that reveals their biases, rather than any useful information about which blockchain is working. In the day, what really matters is which of these systems solves a problem for you, better than any of the other systems that you've used, as a user, as a developer, as someone who's making dApps, perhaps, or someone who's just using it to do something, may be cross-border transactions, micropayments, whatever. All of those things will determine which blockchain is good for you, so your criteria are different from everybody else's. Again, part of that is not seeing this as an investment zero-sum game, where one system wins and another system loses.