 Welcome to Making Your Community Project Sustainable here at TechSoup. We're TechSoup, we're a global network bridging tech solution services for good, and our guest today is Pia Mancini. We're very excited to have Pia here. Pia is a democracy activist, open source sustainer, co-founder and CEO at Open Collective, a platform that enables communities around the world to raise and spend funds in full transparency. Collectives on her platform raised $100 million, effectively unlocking access to impact funds around the world. She's also co-founder and president of the Open Source Collective, a nonprofit that provides a financial and admin home for more than 3,000 open source projects around the globe, granting them access to projects, project directed funding from companies, individuals, and nonprofit organizations. Pia is also co-founder and chair of Democracy Earth Foundation, a Y Combinator backed California nonprofit dedicated to developing technology for democracy around the world. So excited to have her. We'll do an interview here for 20 minutes or so, asking Pia questions about her journey, her approach to fundraising, some insights she's gleaned from fundraising over the years, global impact, her approach to global impact and community stories, transparency and more. And then we'll open it up to the community for Q&A. And so with that, I want to pass the mic to Pia. So hi everyone. So much fun to be here today. So I'm going to be talking today to you about Open Collective and it's just going to be a short presentation, just really focused on the nuts and bolts of what we do. And then I'll be open for chatting and questions. So just follow, build this lead on that. So presentation today is called, the future is collective and how to fund our communities. So obviously for everyone here, but I like to start with this because it's like a level setting and like a group hug moment where we all agree that building a community is very hard work. And just a couple of images to show like where we're coming from, where I'm coming from as well, like why we're doing Open Collective and the type of like curdles that we encountered while doing different things around the world. The guy there with the white t-shirt is my friend, Gonzalo. This is in Buenos Aires when we set up our political party and party on the red or the net party. And the government was asking us to get signatures like in triple signatures three forms per person. This is in the thousand and we had to organize them alphabetically and send them to the right place at the right time as well as printing our own ballots, distributing ballots to 7,000 voting stations in the city only. We've been blessed with a lot of help from taxi drivers during that campaign. But the whole idea here is that like doing these like super difficult kind of tests was what we needed to do in order to prove to governments that we were serious. And so they would let us fundraise. And so it was very challenging for us and at the same time what was very difficult was that we couldn't receive any campaign money until the government who were trying to change accepted us as like a valid kind of player in the game. So the whole game is really twisted from that perspective because the system is enabled, it's designed to expel people. Next to it you'll see our Trojan powers. I'll talk more about that probably over wine at a different time. But essentially we built this Trojan horse and paraded it around Buenos Aires. And it made so much noise that we finally, the governor finally was like, okay, we can let them play. But again, like the hurdle is not nothing. And below there you see some folks from climate activists. This was in one of the cops a couple of years ago and they came together and they hacked together to think like technology for climate change. And we are all hackers here, we got it. So we were builders, right? So we're like, okay, we're gonna do this website, this thing is that. And they were like, okay, but afterwards how do you crystallize all that energy? No one wanted a foundation, a nonprofit to do this work. So we're forcing these circles to twist a little bit to one side and to the end to become triangles because that is the only thing the system understands. And most of our communities folks, they're not triangles, they're circles. We come, we contribute, we take them off, we do one thing, then we do something else. There's no precedent, there is no hierarchical structure. So it's really at odds with who we are. And so we define the collectives of the internet era by the following characteristics, right? Peer production. So like this kind of P2P collaboration and production and energy and creativity that is flowing in this kind of nodal way. They're global, non-territorial communities. And this is hugely important because because they're not anywhere in the world, we can't have accounts anywhere in the world, right? We actually need to be somewhere in the world in that territory in order to cooperate, right? So like the system, the nation state kind of scaffolding assumes that everyone is like inside a territory and that's where you unlock your badges and can actually participate in the game. But all of our communities are not necessarily territorial, right? So we have low trust building opportunities. Again, because you're not face to face or you're not in the same space, we need to figure out how to collaborate in a way that we can do that in a low trust environment because creating like what real trust takes a long time. And so we're here talking about people who are contributing, collaborating, and maybe they're folks who might never meet face to face. So how do we enable that? We need transparent money flows, right? Because in this level of contribution, we need the flows to be transparent. So the structure that previously the firm provided, we need to be able to create it. And again, obsolescence of hierarchy, no one wants to be the president. There's no president of the internet, right? So Open Collective has been sustaining decentralized communities since 2016. So what is Open Collective? So essentially Open Collective is one solution for fundraising and money management that has two parts. One part is a non-profit platform that is an open finances platform that allows collectives to fund, raise and spend their money, make events, have subscriptions, be in touch with their contributors, etc. Plus a network of non-for-profits and fiscal cost that act as custodials of the funds. So Open Collective is not a thing. It's a constellation. It's a constellation of entities. It's the platform and the hosts and the collectives. So tech for fundraising and accounting, access to non-profit status, transparent budgets across the board. There is no hiding where the money is going. Again, this is key in environments where trust takes a long time to achieve. And also think about it, right? You are a community. You want to fund money, put money together, mutilate groups, right? We're just going to support our neighborhood. And at the beginning, everyone said, okay, I'll collect the money, $10 here, $50 there. After a certain amount of money, it's a risk for you. Like it's a tax liability. You need to be able to show more or less what the money is going. So it's also like a bigger legal risk for the person holding the money. And it doesn't make any sense, right? We need some sort of structure that allows this to happen in a transparent way. So we have learning and leadership development. This is like some of the hosts to, for example, the solidarity economy school. And so we do have a lot of work that we are doing with Collectives. We want to do more of this. It's one of our goals, an international network. So we have a network of hosts from around the world. The technology is community-led. So we are building this technology with our users and community members, the physical hosts on the platform. We have open roadmaps open. We're obviously open source. We have like our Github issues, like everything is transparent. We have emerging leadership and a network that, in the future, this is one of my main goals is that this whole network, this whole constellation, it's going to be owned by the community that it serves, right? Really like a goal of mine that I would love to be able to bring into the world. So this is actually a slide so many times before. We're from 2015, but essentially it's still so good. So Open Collective sits in like a digital kind of layer between the collectives that are unincorporated and the hosts that hold the money for those collectives. And it's the hosts that are taken to the legacy system, so the nation states. So this is a typical example, and I bet any of the communities here today want to do this. We're trying to raise money. Yes, we need money because we need to buy things. We need to pay ourselves. We need to carry out our craft thing that we love doing. Okay, so do we need to be a nonprofit or a charity? Or hang on a second, what about an association? No, but an association is really, it's not nonprofit status, so we can't receive money from GANs. Okay, how about an LC? No, but that really for profit, like how are we going to justify? We all go through the same questions like, trust me, you are not alone on this. Like it's rinse and repeat. We have the same conversations at the core of every community. So we're trying to solve that, for example, right? So how do we make progress in this? No, this is for example, OCF is one of our hosts, right? Like the beauty of this work is that OCF can hold the money for you and can give your group nonprofit status, right? And so you have your admin team, you have your group, you have your connective, but the money goes to a nonprofit in California. So the platform allows us to raise this money in full transparency and we do this across the world, right? In the US, in the EU, in New Zealand, in Africa, we would love to start in Latin America. That's another kind of fed obsession of mine. And so the online platform is like where everything flows through open connected ink, which is the company that builds the platform and who gave you money, who spent money, where the money is going, how much money you have to the send at any given time. And anyone who has been to a fiscal sponsor or has been through a fiscal sponsorship project before, you know how important it is to have access to this information. Any collective knows today, right now, how much money we're holding for them to the send. And there's a lot of value in that because there's a lot of empowerment that comes from that. So the process is very easy. You create a collective, you select your fiscal host, I need to move my image from here. You find, raise from line and then you just spend the money. That's it, in full transparency, the platform takes care of a lot of the kind of processes and the host, take care of the really hard work of doing the compliance and managing the funds for you. As Billy was saying before, we raised, we essentially unlocked, that's the way I like thinking about it. We unlocked a hundred and five million dollars into the hands of community. This is money that, if you picture it, it's money that we helped move from the center to the fringe. Right, it's money that it wouldn't have been able to go to the hands of these collectives unless there was like a process like this one. And we've had 15,000 communities joining in. So we are now funding like multiple public goods, commons, grassroots communities, climate activists, data trusts, social and political movements. So we started very focused on open source communities because the ecosystem was very ripe for something like this. But we branched out for that, especially the last three years, it's been a bit of a joy ride. And so it just is really this obsession that we have at Open Connective of how Open Connective, as I said, is like a multiplicity of actors at the core is from that makes everything happen. But that platform is in the hands of a company that has investors and ownership. And we are, we believe very strongly in community on tech. Right, we think that because we are here now and we are stewards of this community, of this from today. And I know the team and I know our values, but tomorrow might not be here. So how do we ensure that those values are enshrined when someone else is at the helm, right? Not that someone else is not going to do a good job, but we just have no way of controlling that outcome. And so we think that it's key that the community that uses this, it's fully owner of the mechanism that underpins their livelihoods. So that's it folks. I'm going to finish here because open for questions. And yeah, I'll be here. Thank you. Bea, I want to start with personal journey. You shared a bit about your work in Argentina, but I want to get a little more granular and hear more about the critical juncture that led to the inception of your platform. What was, what was there a triggering experience or moment or collection of them that really brought you to this place? Yeah. So the platform was originally worth three co-founders who started Open Collective and the person who was leading this at the time, Sadie Daman, I think many of you might know him or not. He's a Virgin entrepreneur. And we got together when I was living in San Francisco. I was nine months pregnant. I had no idea what doing a startup was and I had no idea what being a mother was. Now I know. And so we were like, maybe we can do this. And I'm like, sure, why not? Like I'll just pop this baby and then we can get on with it, right? Yes, I know. Optimism is a force of nature. And we got together and we started talking about where each of us were. And so I was coming from Y Combinator, from the Net Party, from really feeling that it was quite unfair for the communities or projects initially. It's really like the Net Party to be forced to become like something that looked like the system that you're trying to change. Because you wanted or not, when you start looking like the system because you're forced to do that, you end up becoming the system. It's this kind of process that happens where you lose your ability to be detached from it and to build around. So I was coming out from that experience like quite, I don't know, tired, dated, whatever. And this thing that I was bothering was like, why, if I want to change kind of the way politics operate, why do I need to become politics? And so, yeah, at the same time, I was coming from that same kind of experience who was trying to do this movement in Belgium to make the startup ecosystem in Brussels like a bit more friendly. And again, cargo, they were like, oh, we'll just do a website. We can connect to Stripe. Oh, we can receive money. And they were like, oh, where is the money going? And so they ran into that problem. It's like, where is the pot, the collective pot where we put the money? And so that's when we decided to join forces and solve this problem at scale. We really see communities as an economic and social unit that has no place in the world to interact as an economic and human unit. And so that's what we wanted to build to really abstract out all the clankiness of having to deal with the legacy system and just unlock that power when communities are just unleashed to do what they want to do. Very powerful. I totally hear you. And I want to return to the brief comment you made about a legacy, legacy structure or legacy idea of the nation state later if we have time. Sure. If you need to time box me on that one. This is only a 60 minute webinar. So maybe next part two. Okay. I'll jump right into the fundraising journey and impact question. So fundraisings, of course, fraught with challenges. On so many levels from a power dynamic of funders to grantees and so much more people who have access or obviously first at the funding lists and parties and all. And so you must have had invaluable insights over the years about your own fundraising journey and bringing open collective to life that maybe reshaped your own understanding of the hurdles faced by other makers of public good technology. And I'd love to just hear how you bucket the challenges that kind of, I guess, just became more apparent to you and obvious in a way that previously you just had a blind spot too. Yeah. And that for me is a bit of a painful in a way question because if I had to start open collective today, I wouldn't have made the decisions that I made. And the reason is that when we started open collective in 2015, there really wasn't, you just did a startup, right? You opened the C Corp in Delaware and people wanted to give you money and there was a lot of money in the market. So they were like, yeah, sure, we like open source here. You can have money. And we were like, okay, so how do we do this? And there's like this is that when I give us money and angel investors and we're like, we need money because we actually need to work. And we were very lucky because we have really good investors who understand what we're doing. And they're here for the long call. And also we were very lean. And so we raised very little capital. And so we have a freedom that many companies don't have. But right now we're in this position where like, how do I move forward with this? What are my options for open collective going? Or do I sell open collective? Like if you think in a 50 year time horizon, which I think is the time horizon, the minimal time horizon that we should be thinking. So in 50 years, I think that the problem that we solve, communities need a path to be sustainable and manage their own resources is still valid. Our mission will hold true. But the way we do things might not hold true. There may be new ways of fundraising managing on of that just. But so how do we build a path for the current mission to be protected, Stuart, and at the same time that it's flexible enough that we're not, as you say, locking ourselves into power dynamics with existing actors in the network. And I think that having a seek for open collective ink and having investors on the one hand, it enabled all of this because I would, at the time, we all needed to be paid. I guess we needed salary, right? And so we need to figure out some fundraising. And those were the options available. But I would have done something more in a steward-owned company. I would have baked into the corporate structure, the flexibility that I need now, and I don't have, essentially. That's one of my big learnings. Now with the fundraising itself, because we are very lean, we only fundraise like less than $3 million. And our last funding round was in 2018. And we've been leading of our own revenue since then. But it is very challenging, right? Because, for example, the cost to the network right now, it's a horrible year for everyone, right? There's a big money crunch. Like money now is very expensive, both for non-profit and for-profit. And like our costs don't have, at the same time, the ability that open collective ink has of going and raising money in the market, right? Because costs are non-profits. So they depend on grants, but grant money now is difficult. So I guess what I've learned very early on is that revenue, whether it's your non-profit or your community or for-profit, but like the way you're generating that sustainability, it's key, right? You cannot really, sooner you stop depending on like grants, I think, the better for you in terms of flexibility. That is obviously easier said than done, because at the same time, when there is money, people just want to give you money. And so you're like, we need money to do this, so why am I not taking it? But it sets you also in a dynamic that can be unhealthy and unsustainable. So really think about your core way of sustaining your community. And grants obviously are a huge part of it, but what else other than grants is out there? I think it's very important. Great. Okay, let's talk a little bit about qualitative impact and quantitative impact, how you approach holistically this concept of impact. Because you're so transparent with your roadmaps and budgets and everything else, it's really intriguing to dig into this question of impact. Clearly, you have an engineering oriented approach. And so it'd be great to help the audience, some of whom may not be as technical. Tell us a little bit about the numbers and metrics that tell the story of your global resonance. Yeah, we've had 15,000 communities join the platform. What I like about that number is that it's not active communities. And I think that it's important because it speaks at the solution that we are providing. We want communities to come in when they need this, but also to be able to wind down easily. Because sometimes it's easier to start a project than to wind it down. And so having that flexibility of, okay, this is useful at this stage, but maybe it's not useful anymore. Okay, we'll just close it down. And that's fine. That's the value that we add in the world. I think that it's not about creating these, like, optics metrics that you're always adding because we don't need to create so much structure in the world. And a really beautiful example of that is a project called 1K Project. So 1K Project started during COVID. And the proposal was we're going to fundraise, we're going to give to $1,000 a month for three months to families that are struggling with COVID. And so they raised a bunch of money, and they spent all of their money because they gave all this money away. And then they were like, okay. And then it went dormant. And then when the war on Ukraine started, they were like, okay, let's send $1,000 per family to families in Ukraine. And so we raised, they raised, like, we executed like close to $10 million like that. And I think that from those $10 million, the first stick, going the first like couple of months, it was insane. And again, this is $1,000 per family. So like the number of lives that this kind of enabled is incredible. And now, you know, that is dwindling a little bit because different circumstances. But again, if that collective goes dormant again, that's fine. But the structure is there to be picked up again or we just close it. And so I really like these, because we're very obsessed with growth metrics and impacting in like super large numbers. And I like this idea that maybe we just have 5,000 communities active today on Open Connective. And that's great, right? Because that means that we shoot the purpose, people found us useful, and now they're not active anymore. And by active, I mean that they had activity in the last month, right? Yes. And or the last, hang on, that might be the last year, Nathan might know. And so anyway, it's like we're just tracking a transaction. So yeah, and then we see this flow, so coming and going. And it's a structure that when there's need, we're like first responders. Like people come to Open Connective. And then when it stops working, we have collectives that we've had for five years and they're still going and they're going great. But what I mean, the impact is measured in different ways. I'm also still very interested in, and I can show some numbers. I think that we just don't raise money, for example, in the open source, but we spend money. So we want collectives to spend all their money, pay their members. So I think we paid something in the realm of $23 million to open source maintainers. And that's amazing. So we raise the money and we also spend the money. We pay them. So those are metrics that are like not, like you're sure money flow on the platform, $105 million is great. And I love that. But the true story is like how much money you raise, how much money you're paying people. That's when that is useful. Yeah. So that's some of my thinking around metrics. I appreciate that. Here, when you talk about the structure, it sounds like the design is very much an emergent design that's, as you say, at its most powerful when people want to self-organize and solve a problem in their local community because something demands, has something, someone or something is in great need of support. Yeah. And then it sounds like the guiding principle or organizing principle with the way you're thinking about impact metrics is very much a more like a zen-ish, one most important thing metric. If we get to those communities, we know everything streams down, goes downstream from there. And then if we get them the money, we know once again downstream, we're creating value in the world. Yeah. Yeah. Which to me is a really powerful message in the social sector because I find that oftentimes, people are tracking so many different metrics. And when you ask staff what's most important, it can be difficult for people to stay. Yeah. Like to be clear on where we're going in an increasingly complex environment. And also I think there is like a very kind of a colonial type of power dynamics in that whole kind of impact metrics conversations from the non-profit industrial complex because here we are like, so we are a, not we, but let's say a foundation that has a huge endowment that they are investing in, I don't know, share some trade book and things like that. And there's this concept of perpetual endowment, right? Which for me is like problem number one, right? Because if you have a perpetual endowment, you're not really doing your job because your job is to disappear, right? Like your job is to become obsolete. If you're not thinking about how you're not going to be in the world anymore, you're not really serving your purpose. But the other thing is like this whole colonial thinking of we got your money, right? We got to where we are by like exploiting you or someone else in that country or a community, right? So we have all this money that we got through this kind of really hyper-extractive process. And now we're going to give it to you, but we're going to tell you how you have to spend it because we know better. So it's a never-ending power, very strong power dynamics. And I have, I take a bit of issue with the whole impact metrics conversation, not open collective. Because open collective is a company and we need to be held accountable for the money that we raised and the money that we've brought. But like in the kind of impact nonprofit or social space, I take some issue with this idea of impact metrics because who's deciding why impact metrics? The one that you, this nonprofit decides are the ones that are valid. And so I'm trying to change the conversation and talk about returning money and not giving money because when you're returning, you're returning that money to the people that you took in on the first place, right? And then advocating very strongly, which is what open collective does, of just moving money, no strings attached. We move money from the center to the fringes and then we let communities decide how they want to spend their money because they know best. So that's where my thinking, and I think like open collective's thinking in general kind of states with regards to this impact because it has been so used and so, and I think that you just need to return money and step aside. And sure, there are going to be mistakes and things are gonna work, but you know what? Those communities, those kind of, yeah, communities or organizations or countries that you are returning this money, they need to learn because you do have them in like a colonial power setting for many years. So you know what, they're allowed to make mistakes. I hope they make mistakes because making mistakes is how you learn. And so that's anyway, that's my thinking around that. Sorry, I went on a tangent, but I really would love us to start changing our narrative here, right? Yeah, I appreciate the courage and the clarity. Tell, could you share a bit about how those conversations, like a specific conversation with a funder has gone? I think for most folks, that level of conversation is just out of scope, right? You need a certain leverage or position of power to have, to sit at the table in that particular way. So any story that you care to share about how this conversation is going across the sector? Yeah, no, it's really interesting. I think that in the US, it's a lot harder to have these conversations that for example, in the UK. So I participate in some kind of conversation in the UK happening around new frontiers in philanthropy and investment. And this is the kind of mainstream discourse at that space. This is what we're talking about. We are having conversations with like billionaires and people that are going to inherit billions. And then we don't want this money because this money, what's your money story? That's what we're talking about. My money story is that my family made this money by doing this in this country. And so we do not feel entitled to this money, but we also do not know how to give this money, right? Because how do we return this money? No playbook, no playbook, yeah. There is not no playbook for someone saying I don't want four billion dollars and you just give them to whom. And that is the conversation that is happening in the UK. We are watching the largest transfer of wealth in history right now happening from like the boomer generation to our generation. And this is a generation that is thinking about these things differently. Again, I found those spaces to be more open and more attuned to this narrative in the UK, maybe because the empire history and the kind of colonial kind of blows, but this is very much the way we are thinking about it. Now in the US, it's a lot less open. I've had conversations like this with folks inside these foreign agents, they're folks with whom I have a level of trust that we are able to talk about this. I think that there is reception at an individual level. I've said these things on stage, by the way, you know, in different places. This is not something that... So I'm happy to keep repeating this because I think it's very important. So no one's going to have... It's not a problem for me. But so we've had these conversations with folks inside some of these like large foundations in the US. And I think at an individual level, we are... I've managed to get some of this kind of narrative understood. I think that at a corporate level, this is not something that it's going to change anytime soon. But I think that like everything once we step, democratic culture is upstream of democratic institutions. Right? So the first thing you need to change is like culture. Once you change culture, that downstream of that, you can't change institutions. If you flip that, you're screwed, right? Because whatever institution you want to do in democratic institutions without democratic culture is not going to change. And it's the same the other way around. Like culture and culture wars are upstream of the political situations that we have to... And so I think that it starts with this. It starts with like more and more conversations and narrative discourse changing happening in these spaces and like flowing out of here until the culture makes that shift that allows for institutions to start perceiving this. Yeah. Yeah. Great insight. And I absolutely agree. Okay, I'm going to ask one more question. Then we're going to do Q&A from the audience. This is, again, we've only been talking for a little while, but it'd be helpful to give the audience in the spirit of one most important thing, what is the one most important thing you would call the audience to action in their own work as makers of public good technology? That's a very good question. One thing. So I think that because I'm talking to a technology audience, this is what I'm going to say. If the audience was different, I would say something else, but I think that when you're building technology and you're designing community tech or technology for the common, so technology for the public good or whatever kind of phrase you want that articulate, I think it's very important. And this is not something we're good at doing. And so I suffer from this. So this is coming from a place of acknowledging that we need to be better at this thing but of bringing in the community at the design stage of your technology. Because if you don't, you end up likely, what ends up happening is that, especially technologists, we fall in love with certain ideas or a way of doing things. And but we are not inviting into the design the people who we're serving. Right. And so what happens is that you end up, and I don't, I'm not talking about like stuff and building and talking about like someone who can poke holes at your arguments that can see and spot your biases. Right. Who can understand that? Look, no technology is neutral. That's a fallacy. But we're going to discuss about that later. But yeah, that's my thinking. And so every technology that you build and you develop comes with certain bias, biases that are inherent to it. And so we need to bring in people at the very early stage of the design process to help us understand what those biases are if not at the end of the process, it's very unlikely that you're going to be able to change things or even understand. So this is something that I say a lot when I speak in like technology space, especially in the web three space, because I go crazy when we're democratizing everything, but then we're building technology and then giving it to the people. It's a little bit like, you know what? Oh my God, I forgot the word. This is old age people. When in politics, when you have to vote of referendum, it's a bit like a referendum in politics, right? They're like, the political corporation cannot make their minds or come to an agreement and they're like, well, we're going to throw it to the people and we're going to call that democracy without any kind of, without any previous real previous work, without involving them in the decision-making process from the beginning before without allowing people to learn fail, understand why they're failing and learn again. And so sometimes with technology, we have tendency to do this a little bit where we're like, oh, we did this great thing and then we're going to give it to the community so the community can use it and the community, yeah, sure, we'll use it because there's not a lot of tech for the community, but really, is it ours? Did we build this together? And so again, that kind of power dynamic thing inside technology communities is real and I think that we need to break it. And it's real. You've seen it even in the public good tech space as well. The makers who are allegedly explicitly trying to work on behalf of civil society. Yeah, I see for open collective. Yeah, we are like, oh, we open a roadmap and then I'm like, have we ever done a public webinar on how to use open collective roadmap, how to interact with open collective roadmap, how to work, be part of the practice with talent, right? Like, it's not the same thing to say. You're designing for the 1% of us who are going to click through all the links, right? Yeah, yeah, I get it. I get it. So that's a great takeaway and now we'll go to Q&A. Hi, everyone, Nathan here. There's a question. How do you select a host? And how do you choose one? And what I answered and then maybe Pia, you can add more flavor and color to it is I provided a link to or you can see all the hosts, but it's a really important decision. You start with location. Where will money be coming from geographically and where will you spend it? Where will it go? Does that fit with your logistically with what you're trying to do? It's also important to find a fiscal host that has the right tax status and legal entity type for you, like a nonprofit, a charity, a co-op, and that's aligned with your mission. But it strikes me as just a very important decision and also something that the platform tries to help you with. Is that the answer? So first I want to thank you, Pia and Nathan for joining us. Your dedication to positive change through this vision is so beautiful in that you are trying to take these human values and instantiate them through the technology so intentionally through community and it's really inspiring to us. So on behalf of our audience, thank you for sharing your remarkable story. We're excited about the boundless potential of Open Collective.