 has the right attributes to maybe spec this out, is we think of sort of smart contracts from a technological standpoint as a necessary utility for certain inputs and outputs to occur. But, and with all respect to Nick's as well, it's a bad name. And every lawyer in here knows that, right? A smart contract is much more if this than that kind of machine, right, the daemons or whatever, but then it is a legal contract. But because of that conflation, there's so much confusion around it. And we desperately need to sort of figure out the problem which we'll work through today through wonderful help of Red Bull and got an artist that we're gonna Skype in here in a second. We're gonna talk through the problem set. We're gonna then have IBM come in and talk about their technological solution. Danny's gonna add some guidance on that as well to say, okay, well, here's a certain state of the art with technology. And then we're gonna analyze the legal elements to try to break through the clutter between a smart contract and a legal contract and then build the spec for that problem set. If we can leave this room today with that kind of working spec, then we can continue to iterate. I hope we find some way that we can all do it together to actually make this real because we have a participant here in Red Bull and I just can't thank you enough. And I wish Martin was here too, but Red Bull's DNA is best I've been able to tell and I've been to Salzburg and done work with these people there. It is very much powered by that same passion of music that powers me and a lot of people around this room. And they have put their money where their mouth is and their commitment just constant to this project. And the benefit of it is not only do they have that sort of powerful sort of push towards musical value standpoint, but their financial fortunes are not made by selling music. Rather just helps them establish their values. And so we have the ability here to have a big impact player who is not tethered to the same outmoded kind of methodology that the major labels are with respect to innovation. They're willing to try stuff and they have the power to do it, IBM too, of course. What we've been missing is the brainpower that's accumulated in this room and also candidly with all my, we have not, and it's not been without trying but we have not sort of integrated the artists in as well as we should. So I'm delighted to have an artist here and talk with them and figure out from a design thinking way exactly what the problem is. So that's the general sort of framework for today. I don't know, Daz, if you want to sort of add to that, but just very little. So part of what we can do together is to take the framework and the scope as George has kind of set it out. And along the way through the day, help to identify good candidates is how I would look for it. For articulating maybe on a whiteboard. Functional requirements, success metrics, maybe design patterns, some of the types of things that could assist one in successfully scoping a buildable and a, I guess, proportional spec as George said, so that one could actually trace whether or not it's achieving the functions and to see, and to the extent that as we're talking through the day, things come up and we think about, oh, we could use this technology or this tool. That's good, but then as we keep maybe a running list is how I would suggest doing it of potential inputs to a specification. The best way to do it is to state it in almost a technology neutral way, a way that's agnostic to the specific implementation, but just the system would do this. It would prevent that. It would achieve this kind of outcome. The parties would relate in this sort of way or there'd be a sequence, that type of thing. And then the more we can capture the fire and the vision that George just shared over what the point would be, what is the purpose and the objective. We can even start to fashion that in a certain way. You know, not that it's necessarily mathematical, like pure logic, syllogism, but in a way that still can guide the formulation of a specification so that we can evaluate it against how well we think it's likely to achieve these purposes. So I'd just say as things come up where you have good articulations of facets of that purpose, we should chuck it under purpose. And as things come up where a good idea occurs or someone says something, or there's a line of conversation even, that could be articulated in a way that engineers could build and could come up with technologies that are maybe even different from what we know exists now or we didn't know a tool could do that. I think that would be a really beneficial way to extend the possibility of success for the conversation convening that we're doing today. So we can help with that part. And then to the extent possible, we'll have like 70 more kind of superstar students participating in a parallel online set of sessions for this course. And we can make some of that available to them maybe at the end of the day and get a little extra power boost. So with that, let's go. Yeah, thanks. And so I'd say that it typically takes my students, I don't know, like half the semester before they start realizing that I'm just a utter like blob of, you know, bleeding heart, softy, you know, mess of a human being and then they start talking. I'd like to shortcut that, right? I mean, I don't want to do this. You know, like, you all are smarter than I am and you have different friends or whatever. So let's make this a part of the difference of the worst nightmare would be. So maybe, I mean, we should pause there, I guess, if you have any questions or thoughts, please back here. Sure, I wanted to say, thanks so much for our tickets. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, really, it's really great. You know, it's very clear that we've got an engineer all the way out of this. Yeah. Because this is deplorable. Deplorable. Yes, it is. And we'll figure out how to do this. I want to just quickly draw a historical note for people you mentioned, Napster. There is a very important parallel trajectory out of Napster. George mentioned when you decided to Spotify, historically, from a networking architecture blockchain and its networking infrastructure as a direct historical relationship to Napster. So it's very important historically because we can affect all kinds of things. The decentralization. Well, decentralization too, right? That's what you mean, right? Yeah. Yeah, I was just sort of an initial thank you for saying that. And I'd love to thank you for the opportunity for the collaborative efforts and seeing for just being the person that shows the brain that you are that can kind of shape this and the way that you do. I don't think we could be more different in our approach. But I certainly love working with you on this. Ditto. Yeah, I mean, the chemistry is definitely there. So let's see if we can make it bubble into something we can achieve. Great. And I love this idea of, on one hand, what's the purpose, and then what's the tech to achieve that. That's a really, really nice sort of organization principle. Other thoughts or comments or just other levels in the end? Every time we tried to kind of open up the system, my background suddenly, we had a problem interrupt. So it's kind of cool managing the same one for using and buying. So the trick over there was to separate the entities and have someone kind of do the entities of how someone put in kind of the system to get to the buyers and make sure they don't have completely visible of the comments. So it's how do you manage common goods? Sort of the better the comments or people taking advantage of. So and so how do we deal with comments? Because it's the tragedy of the common goods. Yes, that's what's main is we separate who managed the infrastructure. So how do what's music label is kind of owning that we have that energy in water because it's the same infrastructure? I think the tragedy of the comments is real relevant here. This is sort of a thesis as it relates to purpose. But I appreciate that guy. I think one of the things of the view.