 Hello everyone and welcome to EHF's Impact Springboard. This is the first of our sessions, which is really exciting and today we are focusing on transformative ventures for global impact, which is showcasing a number of our EHF fellows. The idea of this Impact Springboard, which is the first since 2021 I believe, is a real focus on leading innovation for global impact. So we are just going to open with a karakea. My name is Michelle Parker. I am the Head of Fellowship Experience at EHF. It's nice to have you here with us, Denise, and Janine, expanding the mind. Okay, beautiful. Keep putting in your inspiration, why you're here. It's really nice to have you here with us and I'll hand over to Rosalie, our CEO of the Hillary Institute and Edmund Hillary Fellowship to introduce our panelists also. Over to you Rosalie. Oh, sorry, Rosalie, on mute. I have to say, I have been really looking forward to this session because it is an opportunity to really hear the voices of three what can only be described as transformative leaders. So these are EHF fellows that are building ventures that have the potential to deliver enormous value for the future and deploying cutting edge technologies that can improve or radically change existing systems. So to me, they absolutely epitomize what the Edmund Hillary Fellowship is all about, which is being a base camp for global impact. So what I'm going to do is introduce each one of our panelists in turn. They'll have five minutes to share with us their sort of ventures and vision. And then we will open this up to everyone on the call to ask questions. So as you're listening, if you've got some burning questions, please put those into chat. We will come to those. Or alternatively during the Q&A part of this, you can put up your digital hand. I'd like to kick off straight into it by introducing Aaron McDonald. Aaron is a 20 year technology industry veteran who's at the cutting edge of blockchain and Web3 technologies. He's the co founder of Futureverse and Rediverse Studios, which have created the platform and tools for a multi world, multi IP Metaverse experience for mass consumers. Think of this as the future of entertainment and the Internet. Aaron, I'll let you demystify the Metaverse and Web3 for those that may not be familiar with it. What I'd note here is that Futureverse is one of only a handful of New Zealand unicorns, you know, privately held businesses with evaluation of over a billion dollars. And we do believe that it's New Zealand first Maori led unicorn. Aaron was co founder, centrality, general partner at NetEx Ventures and D64 Ventures, co founder of non fungible labs and co founder of altered state machine. And in 2019 he was named Ernst & Young Technology Entrepreneur of the Year and recognized by IDG as one of the top 50 technology leaders. So I'll hand over to Aaron to talk about the work that he's doing. So yeah, so thanks everyone for having me on really excited to be here to share a little bit about our story. As we kind of went over in that video Futureverse is a Kiwi media tech business. So we make software for the entertainment media video games industry. And really what we do is we kind of focus it on what we'd call the open Metaverse. So a little bit of kind of definition for what that is because as a term that's used a lot. And there's lots of different ways to think about it, but our simple way to think about it is it's the internet growing up. And so taking what was a flat web experience and making it into a more converged and immersive web experience. So it's blending all the things that used to be kind of standalone bits of your internet experience into one thing. So if you think in the past you had different silos of experience in media and communications and finance and banking and gaming. And you used to kind of experience those and go different different places to experience those and they were quite siloed when I started in technology. They were so siloed in fact that media companies and communications companies had their own separate infrastructure and networks. And as the internet's evolved, they've become more and more converged. And so that's really what the metaverse is about. It's that increasing convergence and increasing immersiveness of internet experiences. What we really do is we build data protocols to enable people to own their data and content on the internet. Take that with them between applications. We build technology for creating interoperable content and assets, particularly focused on generative AI. And then we work with world leading brands to showcase that technology in a range of different connected experiences. And so taking that technology and bringing it to life with the likes of Warner Brothers or FIFA or Reebok, a whole host of global leading brands that we can showcase how consumers can own their data and content on the internet and make it interoperable with other things. Aaron, thank you. And there's there's a lot to be able to take in there. Could you tell us just a little bit more about the deal that you've recently struck with Warner Brothers and what we're going to see tangibly out of that? Yeah, it's really exciting. Worked for a couple of years on this. I think in the popular mind and popular culture, people understand the word metaverse mostly through the expression of Ernie Klein and Steven Spielberg and Ready Player One. You know, when it's the go to kind of reference point for people to explain what they think the metaverse is and journalists and, you know, in popular culture it's referenced all the time. In fact, when Apple Vision Pro launched late last year, their kind of PR campaign, Ready Player One was trending alongside that because it is so intrinsically linked to the popular mind about what the metaverse is. So as part of our mission to demonstrate what that can really mean for consumers, we wanted to have the world's best IP in these five different sectors. So sports, mass media, music, consumer goods and celebrity and culture, and there is no better IP in the world than Ready Player One to bring the idea of the open metaverse to life through. And so we actually formed a joint venture with the creator, Ernie Klein and producer of the movie Dan Farah and partnership with Warner Brothers to own the IP for Ready Player One to activate it in using our technology and really show how we can bring lots of different games, applications, experience and content together in one place, make it interoperable and give users power back over their data and content. Aaron, thank you. That's incredibly exciting and I'm sure that there'll be lots of questions from our audience around that. So please put those in chat. Next up, I'd like to introduce to Benita Das, who's an award winning technology entrepreneur, and she's the CEO and co founder of Sorcero. So Sorcero is the leading platform for AI powered medical analytics for life sciences. It's Google's partner for medical analytics and generative AI and medical publications, and also Amazon Web Services partner in health equity analytics. What I sort of got to understand this is that Sorcero applies advanced analytics to medical and scientific content. So it allows medical specialists to explore these vast libraries and constantly changing libraries of unstructured medically relevant content, illuminating the most meaningful analytics and insights in order to improve patient outcomes. It's produced by six of the world's top 20 life sciences companies and Dipponita previously built the digital scientific platform for the largest global public health policy initiative influencing health outcomes for over 3 billion people. And she's graduated from three of the world's top five startup accelerators. So Dipponita welcome and we'd love to hear more about Sorcero and your vision. It's lovely to be speaking with you all today. So let me start a little bit about why this matters. So we are all patients, every one of us and everyone we care for are also patients and many of us have had, have had to be caregivers as people we love deal with complex illnesses, you know, starting from cancer to everything else. At the same time, the world of science is really exciting because there are new treatments coming out every day. As a simple data point right now that are 1100 compounds that are in phase three that the FDA is going to approve in over 60% of them over the next five years, which means the world technically is awash with new ways of treating some of the most prevalent illnesses of our time. And you think that would automatically make patient lives better and automatically many of us are going to access that and get better. But that is fundamentally not true. And when we unpack that and how do we make sure that these treatments actually get to patients in a in a timely and useful manner, we start to see several glitches in that process. And the glitch or the glitches that we work on are how do we make sure that patients patient advocates physicians, not just in the country in which the drug was first produced, but, but physicians were treating everyone across the world with that particular disease or particular disease state, are able to understand these products know when to apply it, and to be able to figure out how patients are going to pay for it. In the case of reimbursement, and this entire process is an act of in large volumes of data analysis and communicating the efficacy the safety and the value of those products, so that patients can access it so that physicians can prescribe it and so the pairs when reimbursements are required will reimburse it. So with Sorcero, what we've done is we've solved first and foremost, the data challenge of bringing all of this information together and making sure that the farm and the manufacturers in this case the pharma companies and their medical affairs leaders who are specialist product manufacturers functionally have the ability to understand where their products are not properly understood, and how to overcome those information gaps. We also use that to design workflows, most of this work has been done manually for the last, you know, 100 years it's PowerPoint decks and Excel sheet so it's inefficient it's unscalable. The first is there is not a classic understanding of customer intelligence so a pharma company cannot really tell for example, those with a particular kind of breast cancer in New Zealand, who might be operating with different genetic modifications or different social determinants of health or different ways of adopting the same medicine as in the United States how do we treat them with that particular product or that particular asset. Thank you. We work with across the globe with customers in Japan and Europe and hopefully New Zealand soon as well. And we help pharma companies communicate the effectiveness and safety and access around their products. Divinita, thank you. And that's really exciting. May I ask, and I realize that this may be a little bit homegrown, but you did talk about New Zealand. Where do you see the potential of the application for our theater in New Zealand. And, you know, New Zealand represents a market, which is very interesting so new, it's not so a lot of the new products are created in some of the bigger markets in the world by certain leading institutions. You think of the Mayo Clinic in others as the leading institutions and a lot of the researchers in those leading institutions will come up with new products but when they're actually running clinical trials and this is really where diversity really becomes key. And I think that these clinical trials are often recruiting patients from a very narrow population. And that's determined by geography access to that particular center that particular researcher. And also when the FDA approves a product and particularly now they're doing it for narrow or narrow or patient population so it's not everyone with breast cancer it's people with breast cancer within a certain demographic with certain genetic mutation so it's very, very narrow. And when that product actually goes to market, we the manufacturer knows that there are people all over the world that have that condition and need that particular drug or need that particular therapy, but their physicians actually don't know how to prescribe it. And the insurers don't know how to justify the financial value of reimbursing it, particularly when it goes across the world. Many countries also have protocols around, you know, some folks will accept an FDA approval, some folks won't, you might need to run clinical trials in your own country. Also different countries represent very different genetic profiles and have other factors in their environment that will impact a patient. So making sure that it's not just a drug for cancer but a drug for Rosalie. So we're kind of making that move towards personalized medicine. How do you communicate it and making sure that a country like New Zealand which represents a very wide and diverse genetic pool and social determinants of health is all represented in that data is really essential. It's similar to a country like Brazil or anything else where there might only be one or two top researchers who are working on that particular disease state. It's really important that their patient populations are represented in the data so that those treatments can make it to them. Thank you. And now I'd like to introduce our third panelist, Lovina McMurty, who is the Chief Operating Officer of Cry10 and she's partnered with another fellow Boyd Maltra, who came to Aotearoa, New Zealand five years ago to found the company. Cry10 has been best described in the way that I can understand it as really the operating system for smart infrastructure. It offers a secure operating system for software defined machines and the manufacturing energy and automotive sectors. Lovina herself will be known to many both here and overseas as she spent the last 20 years investing in and launching growth businesses. So she started her career with Amazon and Starbucks and Microsoft, where she worked on innovative services such as Alexa, Skype and Starbucks mobile ordering. And then she was investing as a general partner in New Zealand's largest venture capital company MoVac and she served on the board of several private and public SaaS companies, including one of New Zealand's most successful tech ventures push pay. And she holds an MBA from Harvard University and a master in mathematics from the University of Auckland. So Lovina does currently live in Seattle but is really deeply connected into New Zealand ecosystem. So Lovina, we'd love to hear more about Cry10. Thanks, Rosalie. Well, similarly to Dipanita, I might start by talking a little bit about how we see the world changing because I think when you create a technology company, you're often trying to be ahead of where you see the world going. Your world view matters a lot. I think since the Industrial Revolution, we've been very dependent on machines, different types of machines. Whether it's for providing power to our houses and we turn on the light switch, whether it's picking up a cell phone and being able to communicate with each other, transport, getting from A to B, cars, trains, hospitals, ventilators, heart monitors and factories that build the stuff that we expect to be able to purchase in shops. And if you think about these machines and how they're changing, in the past, they were often quite statically defined. There may or may not have been a little bit of software in them. But if there was software, it was probably written once, tested, and then shipped. And its functionality then stayed the same more or less until you changed out the machine. And as we look at what's happening with machines as we go into the future, that they're really becoming software defined in a way that they can change and adapt what they do across time. We're seeing a proliferation of these different sorts of machines that we rely on. So they've been distributed. They're often remote from a management point of view. And they're becoming more and more intelligent with that software that's helping them be adaptive. But it's also taking constantly taking in data from the world itself so that the machines can make better and better decisions. As we see, AI also proliferate. A lot of those AIs are at the edge on the machines that are listening to data. And the AI is really automating a lot of how that machine behaves. And so as we think about this world, it offers absolutely tremendous convenience and potential and efficiency for everybody. But it also creates new risks that we've never seen before. Because if we think about taking all the machines that we depend on that run our world and connecting them up to the internet and attaching AIs to them, how do we make sure that they're really secure and that they're safe from cyber attacks? And the other thing that's changing in the world, I would say, is probably nation states and how they compete and go to war. In the past, war was about sending soldiers and planes out to a field of battle that was often in a different country, at least for many of us in the Western world. But in the future, warfare really becomes nation states trying to attack the basic services and infrastructure of the places where we all live. So nation state attacks on our water, on our electricity, on our software defined cars, even on our factories. You may think of manufacturing as being not critical infrastructure. But if we think about everyone's experience during COVID, when we weren't able to get our staff, I mean, it actually kind of undermined social stability in our countries. And of course, that's the very MO I think of some of the nation state actors that are seeking to attack some of these software defined machines. So that's how we see the world changing. Crichton, as you mentioned, is offering a secure operating system that makes many of those sorts of attacks, cyber attacks, impossible. And when we work in security, there's a lot of different, you know, vendors who offer security solutions who say, hey, you know, we're very secure. But we are using a very advanced technique based on mathematics, where every line of code inside the Crichton operating system actually has a mathematical proof that describes exactly what it can or can't do. It's very deterministic in a way that most software isn't. Most software is kind of thrown together. It works when you ship it, but over time as updates happen, and as the functionality changes, it can break. And when you have a deterministic software system such as we're building, you're in the position of really understanding definitively what that software will do, which brings a higher order level of safety and security to these critical machines. It's a big task to build a new operating system. If you look across the last 30 years and say, how many new operating systems have they ever been built in the world? There aren't very many. You've got Windows, you've got Linux. But in our case, you know, Boyd Maltra, who you talked about, is the CEO of the company and has a pedigree in building operating systems that really is unrivaled. He spent 17 years working at Microsoft. He was the technical visionary behind Xbox Live, which was the largest online service of its kind at that time. He built the operating system from hardware through to all of the update servers for Xbox 360. And so we're very fortunate to have him inside the program and having chosen New Zealand as the place that he wants to launch this company to really change the world in a way that we can all depend on the things that we want to depend on, that our cars will work, that our lights will turn on, that when we turn the tap on, water will come out, and that when we click on Amazon, you know, within a couple of days we'll get goods delivered to us. So that's what we're doing at Crichton. Levena, the potential and the vision of this is vast and critical. Where are you seeing the first engagement and interest? Where are the sort of first applications taking root for you? Yeah, in a couple of different sectors. Automotive is one that's, you know, has sort of deep engagement with us at the moment. And I think some of that is because there is a generational change in the software architecture handling with cars. You know, previously they were largely kind of manufactured. The functionality inside the car was hardwired, if you like, and they weren't really defined based on software. And as, you know, Tesla has led the way now for the rest of the world to take cars and think of them as almost like cell phones on wheels, where you can constantly upgrade them, you can download new functionality, you can make them better and improve them across time. And that's great. But again, when you take so many different suppliers and software manufacturers that need to come together in order to make a car, how can you be sure that one person or one supplier's software, let's say, for the entertainment system doesn't take down, let's say, the braking system in the car. And so that really does require a very different and provable level of security in order for all those bits of software to coexist. The other place that we're really seeing a lot of interest, I talked about electrical grids. And so again, what's the future of the electrical grid? A lot of it is moving towards micro grids that are distributed down at the community level. And where different micro grid grids and energy assets have the ability to listen to each other's data and then adjust how they're functioning so that they can respond to the overall level of, you know, demand that's coming from, you know, from all of us consumers and factories. And so similarly with these systems running a smart grid requires us to be able to pull data out of the grid and send instructions back down to the grid. And as that happens, the grid becomes more software defined. Then how do we make sure that those pathways of communication are not opening up the ability for cyber attacks. Lovina, thank you. And all of all of you have stimulated so many thoughts and questions, but I want to start with just some that are coming through and chat at the moment. There's one here from David Bent for you, Aaron, which is, do you agree with the technology policy analyst and sci-fi writer, Cory Doctorow, that interoperability can save the open web, because it frees us from big text walled gardens. And I think this goes to the very heart of what your vision is for the metaverse. Yeah, I'll kind of try and try and answer that alongside the other question that was asked earlier. And I think there is a bit of a tendency for key entrepreneurs to kind of downplay a little bit what they're doing. But my granddad did always tell me to walk softly, but carry a big stick. I think the core thing here is that the metaverse isn't some far off thing and it's not a game you play. It's around us every day. The average human will spend something like 45 years of their life looking at a screen. And so the digital world, the digital economy, the digital science society is our world. It is our economy. It is our society. You know, like Levina said, the systems and infrastructure that our society is based on is based in this digital stuff. I think if we took that away or it broke, then society might collapse altogether. So with that as context, it's like really important that we put humans and communities back at the center of the platform that drives that world. And I think that's, you know, when the web three community in particular started to think about digital ownership online, you know, the things we value increasingly live in this digital space. That was one of the core ideas of that movement and that technology was to put control of the underlying fabric of society and infrastructure back in the hands of communities. And so we're kind of at this precipice now where if we don't do that, the alternate is this kind of bad world where a mega corporation owns everything. And particularly as we see like AI having such a massive influence and brought influence on society at large. You know, if we can't get to a position where, where everyday humans can have a, have a real say about how that technology is used, how it's trained, how it's applied in our society, then it's going to create some very, I think, terrible consequences. And so when we think about creating technology that enables that ownership for individuals and communities, there are two halves to that, to that problem. One half is the ownership path, which web three for digital value solved. You know, you can own these things genuinely now they run on community, community run cloud infrastructure that isn't controlled by a single entity. The protocols have these cool things called smart contracts, which essentially deterministic software like Lovina was explaining before that enable people to kind of rely on code in a way that wasn't possible before. The other half of that and particularly when it comes to how you bring that data to life in the content domain is about interoperability because if you have ownership, but no interoperability you really own nothing. And I think that's been the real big challenge and problem for the web three community at large to demonstrate what the open metaverse looks like is because they focus so hard on, on ownership and without bringing meaning to it with interoperability because if I can't take my stuff to somewhere else, then it has no value value at the ownership itself has no value if it can only be used in one place. And so that's really what we've been focusing on is adding that layer of interoperability and thinking about interoperability of content in a different way, so that when you walk through to this next generation of the internet which is this more immersive content domain, that you can have both of those things and you can truly be in control of those things as a community or as a user. Can I open this both up to divanita and also to the vener because I can see that both of you are creating, perhaps not in quite the same consumer content way but in the enabling platform for the future. And it would be great just to get your vision of where you see the potential for this if you were incredibly successful in 10 years time, what would be the change that we would see and feel within systems in the world. It's a very big question but divanita we could start with you. You're right it's actually a very small easy to answer question. I wanted to actually draw on one thread that but I think Aaron and the vener mentioned before I give my answer and that's the role of the human being. At the end of the day, we not only are the creators of transformative technology but actually the consumers of it and when we chose to bring this to pharma and to life sciences and to medicine and to inform how patients are treated. We actually had to give a lot of thought to how do you design that infrastructure to be safe to be human first like one of you go to our website as a formula which says that human plus AI is greater than either alone. But when we talk to our customers we're constantly trying to put them at the center of this information, because at the end of the day, if they know how to deploy these tools properly, and that they can evolve, and they they're thinking and processes can evolve at the speed of this new tech, then the assumption is they'll be able to keep up and deliver those transformative impacts to their own consumers and customers so I think that keeping the human in the middle and, you know, in front is actually really really important and kind of essential. The other role is, you know, we use the phrase responsible AI there's a lot of work on that, but responsible AI means very different things in different contexts as well. And we have to think about trust in this regard in a big way is that where does a system. Let me restate this that the tolerance that people have for a machine making a mistake is much much lower than the tolerance somebody has for a human being making mistake. I don't know what the benchmarks are right now but I remember three four years ago I think human error I mean human accuracy was like at 89%. When you put a machine in the middle you're looking at a 99% expectation I think the FDA cutoff is 96.1 right so we're actually straining these algorithms which are not intelligent to to kind of exceed human accuracy so I think there's a a lot of things to kind of unpack here when you come when you kind of put the human in the middle, and I think this is also why we need to keep the experts in the middle, because they can make that final decision and really sort of sign off as it were on the suggestion and prediction. But if so Sarah with with all of this and there are lots of hurdles for us to jump over but with all of this if so Sarah were achieves its newest vision, my hope is the minute a life transforming treatment comes to market. The information that drives the adoption of that treatment is is sort of equally distributed across the world so if there are two patients in New Zealand and 10 million in India and if there are 70 million in in the US. They, they and their physicians know how to use it and have access to it at the same time, and I think the time factor is really, really important to me, because a lot of these new treatments are on diseases where you're measuring you know survival in months. So that kind of diversity and gap and inequity in knowing and access is is that information gap is what I hope to have resolved. Definitely. Thank you. Levena. Again, I think an interesting question one perhaps that you'll come from a different lens on. Yes, I mean I can see the technology that we're enabling the things we're enabled enabling some of the most important. You know trends or changes that will see in the world over the next kind of 20 or 30 years and you know our role will be to make them secure enough that will do the change management to embrace them. And so some of the big ones that I think of would be electric electrification of the grid, which has a big impact obviously on the outlook for climate. And so that's that's a huge one in order to electrify the grid we've got to be able to make sure that the grid cannot get attacked as it shares that information and becomes a more intelligent and manufacturing it's things like preventative maintenance, which will drive massive efficiencies and manufacturing. And so there's some big changes that we're enabling that you only have if you can guarantee security, but then there's also when you're in security one of the things you're trying to do is prevent risk. And I don't want to be like dystopian about it or anything but I think about the positive things will enable but also the negative things that will prevent. And, you know, at the moment, as an example, in the US, many of the, you know, pharmacies are unable to deliver people's prescriptions they can't fulfill them because of a large cyber attack that's occurred here in the US. The UK had similar problems with its ambulance dispatch ahead, you know, a week where it was very difficult if you had some problem at home to get an ambulance actually routed to your house. And so again, it's all of these things that we expect as a society that we actually completely take for granted because we just assume that things will keep working. And if you turn the car on it will work, it's in the light on it will work. I'm sick. I can get a prescription. Those things are, you know, all at risk as we think about kind of the future of the world. And I think more fundamentally like why is that that happening to us. I think it's a battle of ideologies and I think that, you know, democracies at three, I think this is a sort of playbook that's really meant to underline undermine our political system and in the kind of western world. And so it's sort of big to sort of go from electrification to democracy. But if anyone's seen a movie on Netflix at the moment, Julia Roberts called leave the world behind. I think everyone at Crichton watched that and there was a lot of head nodding because it's not it's not really science fiction. These are real scenarios that are risks for us that many of us don't need to think about every day. But what you have governments behind the scenes thinking about it a lot and really working hard on how do we make sure the sorts of things that we see in these movies don't really happen to us in real life. And governments working on making sure that they can can do those things to the other governments. That is true. Don't disagree with that. Right. All of you are creating tools for the future. You're not looking to just address the here and now you're having to both keep ahead of and build for the future. What are some of the critical challenges and doing this and I'm thinking both in terms of educating markets but also in terms of raising investment. How is that experience being for you and I'll just have that as an open question. Aaron I wonder if I can point to you because you talked about the fact that actually your your success is your praises are sung overseas more than they are in New Zealand. So I'd just like to hear a little bit more about your experience. Yeah I mean I think New Zealand if we could kind of bring it back to New Zealand as a technology and investing community is very much centered around a couple of specialist areas. I think like business sass being one of them you know that the success of zero and the industry that kind of the VC industry that built up around that success knows that formula well. And so when you're trying to do something different it's hard to get people's attention and and even if you do it's hard for them to understand what you're trying to do, even like kind of the fundamental metrics and drivers we have in my fund side of things something like 45 active portfolio companies now a lot of them are building in these areas of like consumer tech and things that aren't kind of that. They're central to New Zealand's kind of thesis for investing and so they've had to look for other places to raise capital. And so, you know we have a hard job explaining what we're doing because it's new, and there's lots of misinformation about it. The technology layer media in New Zealand is actually pretty poor, you know group think type approach to how they kind of see these new opportunities or how this technology has been applied there are very few journalists that actually get it and understand the tech deeply. We tend to jump on bang bang wagons and like you mentioned you know, future future verse has been in literally every other major publication in the world you know celebrating the success of this Kiwi company. That's you know generating hundreds of millions of dollars and and building technology for the world's biggest brands, you know, publishing world leading AI research and all this kind of stuff and like not not not a boo from the New Zealand media. We don't actually care about that too much because our market and our customers and our community is is the world you know that's the nature of business these days it is a global industry, but it does make it has made it difficult in the early stages to to grow the business and to find talent and do all those kinds of things that you might not have as a problem if you're if you're in another market that's more abrasive of the consumer side of technology or of emerging technology in general. And so, you know we've raised over the years across portfolio companies. We're getting close to 300 or 400 million New Zealand dollars, almost all of that has been offshore, because of the fact that you know the funding infrastructure for these kinds of businesses really doesn't exist in New Zealand and it's hard for the average investors to get the head around it. So, you know, back in particular was like kind of the one, you know, stand out, you know amongst that ecosystem that kind of was more focused on growth stage companies and had a little bit kind of, you know, I think probably a different outlook on on what made a successful company perhaps and then a lot of the VC ecosystem in New Zealand. Levena Scott probably got way more insights on that than I do. Yeah. And Levena actually we would love just to hear from that both in the context of criteria. But I really agree with what Aaron saying that there's certain sectors that the New Zealand VC market really understands like, you know, business sass would be kind of a classic one. I think at the moment, you know, aerospace and you know, space rocket ships and definitely understand consumer tech. Yeah, really, really hard because we haven't shown in the past a history of leading at that. Having said that, you know, Christon did get its funding from the New Zealand ecosystem and the Australian ecosystem so I put Australia and New Zealand into kind of one big bucket as regional funding. We've been tremendously supported by, you know, New Zealand growth capitals actually government funding. I think New Zealand growth capitals put more money into Christon than it has into any other pre revenue company out there. You know, Movax behind us, you know, folklore from Australia. So, you know, I think we've been pretty well supported in this ecosystem. And I think that's not true of every venture like Aaron's a good example. But what I'd say about Kiwi companies is, luckily, we can raise in both places, you can try and tap the local market that has one set of funding criteria. And if you don't fit that funding criteria, you still have the ability to go to go offshore. And I think particularly over the last couple of years, there's been less barriers to offshore VCs coming and investing in New Zealand. In the past, there was always this question of where were you domiciled. And so there were some barriers like that. But I think that we've really seen capital globalize, you know, during that COVID time period. And so I think you've got a great business. Any entrepreneur in the world, when they're raising capital, it comes down to finding the source of capital where their thesis matches what you're doing. And that's hard work because there's so many different sources of capital. We know kind of the big names like a Sequoia or a benchmark, but really most companies raise capital, not from those companies, right? There's literally hundreds of thousands of funds around the world. And it's hard work for anyone to take their particular business and find those set of investors that you have, you know, what you're doing exactly matches their thesis. And we were lucky that that was the case in our recent round with Folk Law as an example, who's an Australian VC. Yeah, if I could just add a little bit to that, like, I think, you know, definitely don't miss the opportunity to connect with the Australian VCs. They really do have a thesis around Kiwi companies, you know, likes of Airtree and Blackbird, for example, as well. They're really good folks. They have, you know, a presence in the local market. Blackbird's just up at K Road, for example, and they have really knowledgeable teams that understand, you know, a wide range of things. In fact, we did actually receive investment from Airtree early on in a portfolio company. And so don't miss that opportunity. And I think the other thing is being an investor in Kiwi companies. If you're a VC out there that's looking to invest in this ecosystem, really take a hard look. Because one thing about Kiwi businesses is, you know, that historical lack of access to capital markets in the same way that, say, US companies have had access to, means that Kiwis typically build better businesses faster. And what I mean by that, they have to rely on cash flow and they have to rely on good product market fit to get them to the point of a growth stage company, because they don't have tons of money to throw at those problems. And so if you're looking for good investments to make, definitely look hard here because Kiwi companies tend to build better companies faster. If I could make one more comment, because Aaron's getting my juices going on this topic. But I also say if you're an entrepreneur, not to think about it as an either or on where you take capital. I think that Kiwi VCs and offshore VCs invest very differently. The offshore VCs, including the Australians do more power law investing. And what that means is, as long as you stay in the top 10% of their portfolio, you're good. But if you slip below that, you may not get them to sort of follow on with funding. Whereas New Zealand VCs are almost like not VCs. They're really like mid-market PE investors. But the benefit of that is they'll stick with you. They want to bring you over the line and see you get to some point of exit, even if that's not 100 times return. You still matter to them. And all they can do is invest in New Zealand companies because most of them have taken New Zealand government funding that restricts them to this market. And so if you think about starting off as an entrepreneur, are you going to be that unicorn like Aaron? Or are you going to be a decent mid-market company that also has a good path in front of it and needs to be nurtured? And I always think that taking a little bit of capital from both of those sources is a little bit of a head, John. What sort of company you end up being. That's really good. Thank you. Thank you. We've got a couple of questions and I think we can bend them together. And look, because we've only got five minutes left, this will have to be the last question. But how does a Kiwi company that is key partners in both the US and China, across risk and opportunity in the complex relationship between these two important governments? And another aspect this was, you know, amidst the growing geopolitical tension and signs of more regionalised rather than globalised world, especially on AI chips and data, how do you navigate some of that? And Devinita, I don't know if this is something that sort of lands in for you, particularly in terms of the healthcare sector. I would say it's a yes and no. So we are not building foundational models, which means the kind of compute we use is just functionally different. What we have to deal with, on the other hand, is country-based regulations on those models themselves. So in order to power source arrows, various products and various product features, we fine tune like 23 different frontier models made by different people, some open source and some not. And they're fine tuned and then picked on the base of the task. But let's say for our customers, you know, as we move from country to country, they have regulations on reporting, on the application layer, and on what models they will allow and what model manufacturers they will allow and not. And so for us, the bigger burden is making sure we have the infrastructure to hot swap models in and out without compromising on performance and staying within the regulatory guidelines of a geography. And we do see this as and the other interesting part is the liability assumption around core training. So for example, you know, and I know there's a lot of lawsuits out there at the moment on sort of training data. But if you're not actually building the model where you are using it, you're sort of in this application layer and the EU just brought us some interesting new rules around that. But then what is the burden on reporting on on the application layer that's using different models. So we think a lot more on that and the geopolitics of regulations around that rather than chips and more what I would call foundational model creation issues. Naveena or Aaron, anything that you would add? I mean, I think it's it's clear we're in a multipolar world now and it's important to understand that when you're building your company and your partnerships and your infrastructure, you know, we are building financial foundational models. And so some of this stuff is kind of becoming quite interesting for us in terms of how we approach that, you know, where data comes from and how it's used. All of those things are starting to pop up their heads and there's no doubt that the arms race that is active in this kind of global political landscape now is an AI arms race. And so I think, you know, you have to be cognizant of that. One of the things that's probably a little bit unique about us is, you know, when you're building web three technology, it is open peer to peer technology. And so the infrastructure in which these systems run on is kind of truly global and bound, you know, doesn't have the same kind of boundaries or or controls that necessarily apply to traditional infrastructure. So you can kind of step back a little bit from that in terms of how you think about the future of technology and the future of the applications you're building. But I would say that we're, you know, there's a real chance that things are going to get a bit hotter. And some of those lines that are kind of soft lines in the sand about where you operate from and how you operate and where your data is and where your infrastructure is are going to get a lot harder. Yeah, I think New Zealand's normal approach is to say, hey, we want to be friends with everybody sitting in the Asia Pacific region, but we also have strong alignments into, you know, five eyes. And so as a country, we try and walk that line. We don't pick sides. I think for Creighton as a company, we absolutely have to pick sides because where we're focused to build our business is around a lot of different U.S. and European government cyber agencies, you know, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Defense, et cetera, et cetera. And in those environments, there's not only having investment from China that you're not allowed to do, you can't even have a revenue reliance of a company that's Chinese because it calls you into question. So, you know, I don't think that's true of every country, but I think more and more, we're going, you know, different entities are going to be faced to make those sorts of choices where they can't straddle both worlds, but we'll have to, you know, vote one way or the other. And that's just the reflection of the world we're living in, I think. So a huge thank you to you all. There is so much that we could keep exploring. Can I just encourage everyone who's still on the call just to go and explore these companies, what they're doing is extraordinary and their leadership is often quite self deprecating. So have a look through and see just the extraordinary impact these organizations are having. And I want to say a huge thank you, Aaron, Devanita, Levina, for your time, your vision and all that you're doing here. And just encourage everyone else who's on the call to join us for some of the other springboard sessions this week as we have a number that are around innovation. I'll just pass back to Michelle. Hello, everyone. Yes, thank you, Devanita, Levina, Aaron and Rosalie also for a great conversation and looking into the future, but also recognizing that the future is now. So Ray has a lot of questions and there's a lot of work to be done here. We'd love to hear in the chat just really quickly some quick feedback for our panelists just to get an understanding and insight into what was something of value to you from this session. So have a little think and put it in the chat. And also we are considering whether we move these forward as a series looking at diving deep and showcasing a number of our fellows throughout the year because really this is just three out of over 500 fellows doing incredible work. And so we're keen to bring this transformative ventures for global impact into a series, but put your insights in and then also answer a yes, a big yes, if you are keen for more of these conversations to and let's see if we can bring those to life. And as you're doing that, just a thank you again and the link for the sessions. Can we drop that in the chat team because we do as Rosalie said have a few more conversations throughout this week between today and Thursday, New Zealand time so have a look at those and definitely come along. And it's been great to have you all here a mix of innovation ecosystem, our fellows public and private sector so it's been just incredible to have have you all here. And with that we will close out with a karakia. So thank you again everybody. Kia ora everyone. Thank you again.