 Noah says, debunking the blockchain but not Bitcoin point of view, how do we persuade average Joe's that the blockchain but not Bitcoin line of thinking is incorrect? Well, first of all, Noah, why waste your time? If they want to go and play the blockchain not Bitcoin game, let them go and play the blockchain not Bitcoin game. I don't think it's our job to persuade other people about the merits of this technology. If what they can understand about this technology is a slogan that has really played out itself since 2014, really, I don't think there's any point in trying to persuade people about the blockchain but not Bitcoin trope. I think it's a cliche. When somebody says, I believe in blockchain but I'm not interested in Bitcoin, I think they're basically saying, I don't understand blockchain, but I've heard enough to think that I can sound cool by dismissing Bitcoin and praising blockchain, because I've heard a lot of other people say that. It's kind of just repeating a cliche. So, why does blockchain not work without Bitcoin? Or rather, why do blockchains not work without an intrinsic, valuable asset that is the basis for a game theoretical model of security? The reason is simple. A blockchain as a structure, a data structure, is a fairly inefficient data structure. The reason we use a blockchain is to achieve decentralization. In order to achieve decentralization, you have to be able to validate transactions without giving anyone the power of veto or the power to control the network. You have to decentralize the process of validation. The best mechanism we've found so far for decentralizing the process of validation is by having a consensus algorithm that depends on competition, whether that's proof of work or proof of stake or something like that. In order to have competition, you need risk and reward. In order to have rewards that are meaningful, you need an intrinsic token. You need something of value that people are trying to get, which keeps them playing fair. If you don't have something of value, then you don't have a basis for that competition. Without a basis for that competition, you don't have security. Without security, you have to control validation centrally. Without decentralization, there's no point in doing a blockchain. You might as well use a replicated database. It's going to be far more efficient. The purpose of blockchain technology and a consensus algorithm is to decentralize control, to provide censorship resistance, neutrality, and a global open platform. In order to do those things, you need some mechanism to decentralize validation. S asks, debt and credit. Given that most of the global economy relies heavily on the extension of credit for major financial institutions, for example, borrowing money to start a business or buy a home, how do you see the blockchain playing a role in this space? I know companies like Bloom use blockchain to anonymize credit borrowers, but the concept still relies on institutional lending. Is there a way to build in the concept of debt or negative balances into blockchain addresses? Assuming that lending can take place on the blockchain, what mechanisms are there to enforce loan defaults? Off-chain banks and the government can issue liens on income or seize collateral, which wouldn't be possible on-chain. Great questions. I honestly don't know how the area of credit is going to be expanded. I think the idea that everything has to be done on the blockchain, or that all currencies will be cryptocurrencies, isn't really where we're going. Just because we have a cryptocurrency that is an asset-based instrument, that is not a debt-based instrument, where you can't have loans and negative balances, because there is no fractional lending or any of the other tricks you might use to create a greater supply or liquidity of credit in an economy, doesn't mean that you can't do those things with fiat. Maybe the role of cryptocurrencies is to offer a form of sound money for people to be able to save their wealth and accumulate capital for future generations, and maybe other types of instruments such as fiat, or cryptocurrencies modeled after fiat, heavily centralized, confiscatable cryptocurrencies with fractional reserve, would be built. In fact, I think we're going to see that kind of cryptocurrency being built. Don't worry. When it comes to issuing credit out of thin air and creating money that doesn't exist, and inflating bubbles by spreading liquidity through centralized decision-making and all of those shenanigans, governments are full of innovation. They will soon develop cryptocurrencies, or what they will call cryptocurrencies and blockchains, that are essentially highly centralized databases that allow them to continue business as usual with not even a pause in their standard practices and create the next giant financial bubble out of control predatory lending, now brought to you on a cryptographically secured blockchain, which is, of course, just a database. Fedcoin is coming, and it will come to many different countries, and it will pretend to be a cryptocurrency and a blockchain, and it will offer fractional lending and full surveillance and controls and confiscation and all of the other wonderful things that we have with fiat, only now on a blockchain cryptocurrency. So, don't worry. Debt is not going to go away just because of cryptocurrencies. The only difference is that you now have an option, and that option is you actually have some currency to store wealth for future generations and for yourself that cannot be inflated to shit or confiscated or used to create fractional reserve. So, let them have their fiat. Maybe you can choose your crypto instead.