 said here stays here, but what's learned here leaves here. So we're going to ask people, rather than attributing quotes to a specific person. Oh, all of a sudden my mic came on. I don't need to yell anymore. Rather than attributing quotes to a specific person, to just kind of do the quote and then use the hashtag. And CCI as an organization is really excited to kind of support all the brilliant thinking coming out of these conversations. I'm going to pause them and see, are there any other kind of agreements that we may want to kind of lift up in honor as we move through the rest of our day together really quickly? I'm just going to do a scan of the room, awkwardly make eye contact with all of you. Keep scanning, keep scanning. Great. And so what I'll try to do if you're talking, I'll probably like go like this. If I can't hear you, chances are other people can't hear you either. Great, we're going to go ahead and jump into it. Super excited to kind of follow the conversation that we all just had together. I'm ready to sign up for Noni's master class whenever she's teaching any of the seminars. Have Jessica and Lauren continue to kind of come in and be guest speakers as well. But we'll really want to kind of continue on the thread. And so to do that, our panel is called Building Economic Wealth to Transform Communities. And so we have Nia from the Boston Ujima Project and Ojon from the East Bay Permanent Real Estate Cooperative to kind of take us through some concepts that touch on this topic broadly. Just to provide a quick frame for what we're really trying to lift up in our piece is that while all of our projects are explicitly trying to build economic wealth for the communities that we are a part of, the communities that we support and serve, we're really clear that that's not the end goal, right? The work doesn't end there. Noni really lifted up that we need to kind of think about the long term governance and management of our communities. And in that same vein, I also really look at how do we leverage the economic power that we're building to be able to ensure that we're also building political power, right? So that people can continue to contest for the things that they need to make a thriving quality of life for themselves and their communities. And so we're going to kind of delve into some of the concepts around governance, around building political power, around how capital shapes all of those pieces, and then hopefully be able to also engage in some intimate and vulnerable conversations around the lessons learned to do this work. So I'm going to kick it off from the first questions. So the first question is really focused in around governance, right? And so one of the things I've been reflecting on in my work is that there's a way that we still kind of engage with governance as being transactional, right? Governance as about turning people out to vote, and that's it. And I think all of our work, we're also starting to see that we're understanding that governance is about how we're building community, really deepening relationships. And with that, governance is also really hard. So I wanted to kind of invite you to talk about your governance structures and to explicitly talk about how you design the governance structures for your projects in a way that helps to decouple capital from power, right? Really being able to ensure that the money coming in is not shaping the overall governance of the project itself. And it'd be great if you could maybe open the couple two sentences about your project as well for those of us that still don't know about the great work you're doing. Can you start it with me? However we want to do it. Sure. And can everyone hear me? OK, great. So again, my name is Nia Evans. I'm with Boston Ujima Project. I have never successfully really come up with two sentences to describe what Ujima does. So I always try. So I'll give a couple of different versions if that's OK. So it's interesting when Angie asks the question about who would lead such an economy that we're talking about. That's actually one of the ways I describe Ujima is I say, Ujima is a model of I don't really believe in models, but I do use the word model of what our economy would look like if it were run by us. And by us, I mean Black, Brown, and Indigenous people. And so that's one of the ways I've talked about Ujima. Something else we say is Ujima is a cooperative finance investment in arts ecosystem. Every single word in that phrase being important. So cooperative is important. Ecosystem is important. Arts, finance, and investment is important. And I'll stop there just with the two-sentence description. I also say cooperative economics infrastructure is something that we do. In terms of governance, so jumping from our ecosystem approach to what that then means for governance, that actually means that we have a lot of bodies and it's complex to your point about it being hard. At the simplest level, one body that I can talk about is our membership body. And we have, if you were with us in the early days, we had this giant sprawling ecosystem chart that we would show people that would be amazing and overwhelming at the same time. And smack dab in the middle was our membership body that we also called our general assembly. And our membership is placed into two broad classes. So there's our general membership, which we also call our voting membership. And that is comprised of people who are residents of Boston proper. We are explicitly focused on working class people of color. And so there's even within that a self-organizing principle that we invite people to use. So we say, if you are a resident of Boston proper, which it titles you to a voting membership, but you do not identify as working class, or you do not identify as a person of color, we invite you to consider our other broad membership, which is our solidarity membership. And that is for people who live outside of Boston proper. And we're happy to say that we've seen a good number of people exercise that option. So we've seen a good number of white people, for example, who live in Boston take our solidarity membership. And we've seen a number of people who feel like they're a little more solid financially than who we would like to focus on. Similarly. And so just in terms of governance and decision-making and power, it's built in upon your initial entry into Ujima. So your membership, or what I would say is the way we've designed our membership is with the principle that those who are impacted by decision-making should be the ones making the decision. And so if we know that we are wanting to invest in Boston proper, and right now we are focused on Boston proper, and we do know that we have to very soon think about areas outside of Boston, it is people inside Boston who should be determining those investments. So let's make it to our membership. So on that note, what do our members vote on? They vote on our investments, and they are direct votes. Our process is that we hold neighborhood assemblies. If anyone's familiar with cooperation Jackson's work, they'll be very familiar with the types of assemblies that we hold, which are essentially gatherings of community members and our members. And what we do with our assemblies is we say that half of the, for us, the successful assembly is half of the participants are Ujima members and in the other half are community residents who are not members of Ujima. And so what's important about that is we don't want to unwittingly transmit the notion that you have to have some type of organization affiliation to determine what's happening in your communities. So you are entitled to that decision-making by virtue of being there. And you should have that whether we exist or not, whether Ujima is around or not. And so at these assemblies, we ask our members three broad questions. We ask them, what are the businesses that you love? What are the businesses that we need? What's not currently in our communities that you would like to see? And what are the businesses that we need to replace? We've done another version of this where we've tried to be a little more interactive and we've kind of done a day in the life with members. So we've asked members and community members to think about their day and to think about all of the purchases that they make throughout their day, who they purchase from, what the service or product is like and what the experience is like and what they believe about that business's impact on our community. And so from there, we get a list of businesses and we also get an idea of why community members are naming these businesses. We do then have a bit of an intermediary body so we do have an investment committee and the charge of that investment committee is to take some of the early work that we've done with these businesses. We also run them through our community standards process which has also been created by community members and voted on by community members. So as an example, community members have said as a standard and this is a non-negotiable if a business is not meet this, they do not receive investment from us. It has to be at least 50% people of color ownership. There are guidelines with regards to ownership by women, guidelines with regards to the pay ratio so there can't be more than a five to one pay ratio for example. So there are 36 different standards. And so we have an investment committee, Deborah Fries from Boston Pat initiative is on the investment committee and then they do some of the more traditional diligence work that a lot of us are familiar with. They surface questions that we may not ask or that members may not ask, comment, et cetera. So that's another body. So that's another level of governance but they don't have ultimate power. So this is a body that has more traditional expertise and they understand they are there for guidance and they understand that ultimately it is a members who will decide. The investment committee makes a recommendation and then that recommendation goes to our members for our final vote. So our members are bringing us the list of businesses that we are to consider. There is as I said, some other bodies that do some additional work that complements the work that our members do and then our members have the final vote. So I think that's one of the ways that we disrupt so to speak some of the ways that decision making, for example, is tied to certain types of wealth or certain types of expertise or certain types of power. The last thing I'll say and I'll, before I throw it to Ajan to talk a little bit is each member gets one vote. And this is regardless of investment amount. This is regardless of participation amount. This is regardless of community stature or some type of other leadership position. If you are a Ujima member, you get one vote and that's it. And you do not have to invest to vote which is also important. And we have plenty of investors who are not members. And so we have plenty of investors that don't vote as well. Can y'all hear me? I love the way that this question is phrased because it lets me cover so many different things. So I'm the finance director at the East Bay Premier and the State Cooperative. You already heard a little bit about our organization from Noni. And we're a multi-stakeholder cooperative which means we have different categories of owners who are all co-owners in the cooperative. We're also a California Cooperative Corporation which through that legal structure gives us certain requirements for democratic control and also gives us a lot of flexibility in how we want to expand that democratic control through our everyday practices. This is a framework that we were introduced to and helped organize with the Sustainable Economies Law Center and we're still ironing up the details. There's always an iterative process to figure out how do we best do this. But I kind of want to approach this through the second part of the question around how we structure our capital so that it doesn't take the front seat. And this way of thinking about this that I'm going to share with you is actually inspired by Aaron Tanaka last year. So Cap went on a little rant about what it means to democratize capital and I was like, yeah, so let me... I want to share with you like what I see as it takes to democratize capital. And I think there's three components that at least that, with this perspective, I'm coming from. One is providing access to folks who don't have access to that capital, right? And for East Bay Prec, those folks are our resident owners. Folks who otherwise are renters for their lifetime aren't able to get credit. They're not made for the entitlement process that our systems use, sorry, the underwriting process that our systems use. So we're democratizing capital by giving access to those residents who don't have access to capital, but we're also providing investment opportunity for everyday people, right? Not just impact investors, not just accredited investors, but any California can invest up to $1,000 in the co-op. And next year we're going to be launching a direct public offering so anyone can invest more than $1,000 in the co-op. Because right now, a lot of folks' money is just sitting in Wells Fargo and it's actually funding the problems that we're trying to fix. In fact, I recently read an article called Workers and Renters of the World Unite in Jacobin talking about how a lot of labor unions' pensions are investing in the projects that are displacing those very workers. So yeah, providing investment opportunity to invest in local control of community assets. And then the last part is that we don't want only our investors and our residents to be in control. We actually want folks who are just a part of the community to be able to have a say, right? Part of democratizing capital is how do you have some control over what goes on in your neighborhood? So it's not just siloed to some banker and the person who's moving into the house next door. So we have a third type of owner, which is just our community owner. You don't have to be an investor, you just have to be a community member, show up to meetings, and the dues are as little as $10 a year because we really don't want funds to be the barrier to entry to the co-op. And lastly, we have our staff owners who are our fourth category of ownership. And now with multi-stakeholder cooperatives, decision-making is sort of complicated. We have a yearly member meeting. We're actually gonna be having our first member meeting. I think on December 5th is our date, so we're gonna be excited to troubleshoot the problems of what does our try-out look like, and yeah, it's really exciting. But that's where everyone gets one vote. One member, one vote. We actually have an investor who's putting in $50,000 and many who are putting in $1,000. They get the same vote as somebody who put in $10 a year. Outside of the member meetings, the day-to-day operations of the co-op are modeled loosely off of something called holocracy, which is kind of a democratic decision-making system that was born out of tech that we're sort of adopting for our purposes and iterating on, where our members themselves, in particular our community members and our resident members, not really the investor owners, get to participate in the day-to-day operations of the cooperative as much as they want by creating circles or committees, subcommittees to work on whatever they really wanna work on, whether that's a group of community members who wanna organize around a project. They create a circle and the staff works with them to do the process of organizing, doing the financial due diligence, coming up with proformas, raising the funds, purchasing the project, or if it's just a group of folks who are interested in passing tenant option to purchase in Oakland, we can create a circle around that. In that way, one of our goals is to have place-based decision-making power and many a polycentric power structure, where it's not all the power is centered in one location, but based on who's impacted, who's interested, power can be held in many circles. Now one of the realities is that we have to own that the staff, the staff owners at East Bay Prec basically are given the trustee responsibility from the board to run the cooperative. So one of our challenges is finding the balance of how much power does the staff exercise? Because we're the ones ultimately implementing the ideas, the decisions of our community owners. And needing to do that in a way that one of the challenges, and I guess we're gonna go to challenges soon, but is really that capacity to participate. Front-line communities don't have as much capacity to show up to your monthly circles than folks who don't have to work. So maybe I'll leave it at that. I would have to that and start, I feel like my chair is breaking, so I'm gonna switch it out in a little bit. Is, you know, I think this is, as we talk about transforming communities, is like transforming people's understanding to governance, right? When we have a governance system where we are told to turn out in every four years in an election under the guise of voter suppression, under the attacks of Citizens United Laws, part of what we're also trying to figure out is how do we work with those frontline communities directly impacted communities that have been alienated from their voice and their vote to actively show up and participate in the work, right? One of my mentors, Saira Pinto, talks about she's trained in holding circles from an indigenous community in Canada, and they do not make a decision, they do not start any of their meetings until everybody is present, right? So it means people have to actively show up all the time and participate in being engaged. And so I'm wondering, and you start to touch on this, Ojamba wants to, if you want to add anything else, Nia, about what has been kind of the learning curve, the capacity building, the human development for people to actually recognize their agency and their voice and their vote to participate in the work that you guys do? Sure. So this has been a lot of fun because it's been very, very hard. We so far, I would say, we so far we have had two pretty big concerted voting efforts that have been drastically different. And for me, what's fun, I think, is what we learn about each other with these processes. Our very first election was for our community standards committee. So this was an election to elect six people from our general membership to be liaisons with the larger body about the community standards process. We have weekly meetings, which is hard. And in those weekly meetings for a period of four months from January to April, 2018, we would ask our members about topics from waste to ownership, to worker power, et cetera. And then the job of this body was to then take that input, combine it with their input and produce some type of proposal for community standards. We had a nomination process that we had to jumpstart by nominating a couple of people ourselves and encouraging our members to nominate other people, just thinking about the role of staff. And we had a candidate's forum at one of our meetings where our members had an opportunity to meet who was running if they didn't know them already. And we said, this will take about a week. For us, quorum is 50% plus one. We would like to have, at some point, we would like that percentage to be higher, but what we said was we wanted to be able to at least say that a majority of our members have chosen something to feel like it's properly representative. As an aside, our attorneys, when they heard that our quorum was 50% plus one, said, do you maybe wanna think about 10% or 20% because we don't know how you're gonna get 50% plus one. And we said, absolutely not. We're gonna go, did my mic go up? Oh, here it is. So we said it would take us about a week to reach quorum. A week came and went, we did not reach quorum. We extended the voting period for another two weeks. And so then that voting period was three weeks and we reached quorum. We reached quorum by me texting every single member that I knew and that I felt comfortable hounding the text message and saying, hey, vote and doing some phone banking. Okay, that's a guide. We then went into our second big election, which comprised four different questions. The first question was, what financial institution will we put our undeployed capital in? The second question was, we've gotten this list of 140 businesses from you all. We need a final ratification. We need an okay. There are no flags on any of these businesses. Let's send the list through and let's start working on it. The third question was, we have this list of 36 community standards. Again, let's ratify it and let's say we're gonna move on this. And then the fourth was a parallel process that we had created to create investment partners. For example, Boston and Pat's initiative. To first say, can we have an investment partner process? And then can you approve 10 investment partners that we have chosen? So for meaty questions, we needed to have those questions answered before we can make any investments. Particularly where we would hold our capital and what businesses we would invest in and the community standards. We said this will take three weeks. It took us three weeks last time. Let's do three weeks. Three weeks came and went, no quorum. A month came and went, no quorum. Two months came and went, no quorum. Three months came and went, no quorum. And this is with texting. The texting worked last time. Phone banking, emails, hounding. We finally reached quorum after four months on the first ballot. Two drastically different decisions. So what immediately opened up for, so as we're troubleshooting along the way, we are managing questions like, well, we asked members where should we put our money because members were asking that question. Members were asking, well, where are you gonna put it in the meantime? So it's our sense that this is important. And if it's important, we should put it to the whole body. Maybe it was not as important as we thought it was for everyone. So there's a question of, what is the important decision that people wanna make? People don't wanna make a ton of decisions. So we knew that for sure. We knew that we had to watch out for decision fatigue. So that was one thing. A second was, we got some feedback from members who didn't realize actually, I think to your point, just about the history of alienation. There's a context that we're all operating with and we're bringing tons of background information into these processes. We're not entering these fresh or new or naive. So democracy doesn't have the greatest rep right now in any corner. And so we did get some feedback from members who told us, I didn't actually think my vote was that important. And we had to say, we had to send emails, for example, that said we will not make an investment if you do not vote. So we have this money that will sit here and we will lose money and we will not invest. And this is not a joke. So there was definitely, I think that, and this is what I mean, I'm saying just learning about people, that kind of learning what motivates people and whether or not people understand democracy to be real. So just bumping into that. And so when people learn, it's like, oh, I'm holding up the process. My vote actually is important. They were moved. I mean, there are tons of other questions I can bring up that we're still working through. You kind of listened to Nia's comments. Anything that comes up for you? Well, first I just want to say that Ujima was a big inspiration as we were coming up with our bylaws and figuring out how we were going to do this. So just feeling really grateful for the work I'll have put in and continuing to learn as y'all are learning. There's a couple of things I guess I wanted to share. One is that even just being a part of a staff collective that operates horizontally and democratically, this has become sort of like spiritual, personal growth work for a lot of us. Imagine if every workplace conflict you ever had could only be resolved by really resolving it and not by just moving forward by your boss telling you what to do or you telling your subordinate what to do, right? And I think that's something that's coming up for a lot of our members too. They come to our meetings and we're really grappling with these questions about reparations and who's in the room. As Amaka said, our first member meetings coming up so I don't have a lot of lessons learned from that yet but trying to really prepare for that. One lesson that I feel like I'm currently learning is we have a community owner circle right now that we launched back in February after we had opened up the membership for the cooperative and we were like, great, we'll open up this community owner circle. It'll be a first place for community owners to get involved and we'll do it downstairs in our shared office space with Selk. And what's happening is that that community owner circle is becoming mostly white. And it makes me realize that we were maybe not, and I'll admit that I was the one really pushing for us to do that, the rest of the co-op was kind of like, well, maybe let's wait, we're not quite ready, but I was like, wait, we need to have community input. But the folks who were able to show up at that time and in that space, because it's downtown, it's not in West Oakland or in East Oakland where the black communities we're really trying to serve are, it just shows you who's showing up to that space. So I'm planning our member meeting, we're trying to think of how do we make sure that that's also a space that right people can show up to. And it's not just our investors who are mostly white and might have the time and opportunity to show up in the space we choose if we're not very thoughtful about it. So I would say this is definitely something we tried to think about early. And I think what we tried to do is design entry, well, we tried to create as many entry ways into Eugene as possible and design them so that they are diverse, for lack of a better word, to match people's lifestyles. And so try to be, what's the word, cognizant of the different lives that we all lead and what brings us to a place. So as I said, we have weekly meetings and that's definitely for the person who can do that. So for the person who has the time, who has that level of energy, passion, et cetera. But those are not the only entry ways into Eugema. I think one of the things that had us in conversation with ambitious, for example, is we have a very specific arts and cultural organizing focus, for example. And one of the things we thought about is kind of de-emphasizing the traditional community meeting as the form of gathering. And not prioritizing that at the expense of everything else. So one of the first things we did, for example, when we were staffed up, is we staffed up meaning, actually had a person working at Eugema, was we had a party. And we said, there are so many community meetings that look and feel the same. There's skepticism coming in the door because there's an idea of how that's gonna go and what's gonna happen afterwards. And usually people are not wrong. There used to be a joke that you should have with a couple of friends of mine that someone could actually make a lot of money like writing a sitcom about community meetings. Because they're the archetypes, they're the characters, they're like the course of events, we know what's gonna happen. And so some people have started to opt out because they're tired of that type of engagement. And so we said, well, let's have a party, let's have something that's agenda, we're not fundraising. This is a way people come together, people socialize. And so we just, we had a party. It was house music, maybe less house music, maybe more. Maybe more hip hop. So that's one of the things. We have a lecture series that we do. And the thing that made me think about responding to you is we're multi-racial, we're multi-class. And what's been interesting to me is to see how our different members engage differently. So we have a lecture series example where we have more of our members of color showing up in that lecture series. Then to the weekly meetings. I have some theories about why I get attached to why we decided to do a party. For example, we had an event in Ashi where one community member came up to me afterwards and said this was fantastic. And this was a restaurant, pretty much we were doing. A couple of friends, I said we had a community meeting because everyone just fights all the time. So I'm not going to tell them. So we try to think about what are the different ways, there are different types of engagement to have with us. There are varying levels of frequencies. The lecture I made happens bimuffly, for example. We use Zoom, so we use technology so we let people know if they're in the room, you can join us at home and a pushback. Then I set technology and then I get an automatic, we do people of color or working class, people have technology, yes we do, we use it. So that also should not be like an automatic response, like assuming we don't have the capacity to access technology. I'm getting these cue cards and so I really want to make sure we kind of get to the next piece and I want to kind of put this next question towards you, no pressure, but as a finance director, want to start actually talking about capital and the capitalization of these projects. And want to lift it up first from a place of just really honoring many communities, low income communities of color that have been marginalized, have been directly impacted by capital in a way that creates trauma when we start to talk about money, right? When we start to ask people about thinking about what does it mean to invest, what does it mean to fundraise, what does it mean to be in a relationship with an individual or an institution that you may have to kind of pay money back, right? And so as we kind of talk about culture and the role of culture in creating healing, I'm wondering if you could spend some time really talking about what has been your experience, right? And fundraising and financing the projects that you guys are supporting through East Bay Prec and particularly if you could kind of talk us through like the strategy and how you've sequenced the different tranches of capital that you've looked to bring into the project, right? So you started off by telling us about this community capital circle that you hosted, wanting to know a little bit more about why that strategy, what was that, what pool of money was that supposed to raise and how does that kind of relate once again to this question around building power. I mean, it's all right. Now I get the hard time thing, so we're gonna try to squeeze it all in, thanks. I'm not quite sure how to answer that question, so I'll just say that part of what we're trying to do is create access to a wide variety of forms of capital for these community groups who otherwise wouldn't even be able to qualify for a loan or know how to organize with their five housemates to try to purchase the property together. So we combine institutional funding where it's available and reasonably priced city or state regional funding and funding from community members, whether it's someone who considers himself an impact investor, but more broadly speaking, our community of everyday people who can invest in the cooperative. For this first project that we did, it was in partnership with the Land Trust, Northern California Land Trust. Presidio Bank brought in a chunk of the capital stack, measure KK from the city of Oakland, brought in a chunk of the capital stack and we actually finished the capital stack with our community investment campaign raising $200,000 from folks here in the community. And what that does is besides having the community invested more than monetarily, but like personally in our black and brown community staying here in Oakland, it also lowers the cost of capital. We're paying, we're offering a 1.5% annual dividend, which is optional actually. When you're investing in VPREC you can say, no thanks, I don't need my dividend. So that brings the cost of capital down which translates directly into lower rents for those residents. As we grow as a cooperative, right, this was our first project, which is why that institutional funding kind of came first in partnership with the Land Trust. As we grow that might change. We had an experience with the CDFI that I won't name, but this is probably pretty common practice where for this first property, we were looking to take out a loan or get a line of credit or something to allow us to purchase. And they asked what other assets we had. And we're a new company, we didn't have any. We had $100,000 in the bank, but that's not gonna take you very far in terms of real estate here. And they said, once you have a million dollar asset, we'll be able to loan to you on this other property. We're not gonna ask that this loan be backed by your other million dollars. It's sort of irrelevant, except we just want you to already have something. Even though their loan was gonna be backed by the property we were purchasing. So that's not great, but what we're doing is hopefully building our own capacity as an organization to say, oh wow, we have these five other properties. It's gonna be a lot easier for us to capitalize properties in the future because of the collective wealth that we're building. And that's why we're not just focusing on creating little pockets of limited equity housing cooperatives, but creating an overarching cooperative that shares these assets for community strength. So another thing that I think will also help to then weave together Ujima's capital stack is while we oftentimes talk about fundraising from philanthropy or getting money from financial institutions like CDFIs, really sorry to hear about that horrible story, what we've also been trying to lift up over the course of the last couple of days is that there's purchasing and buying power that already exists within our communities. And so the community capital raise has also been a significant part of both the projects that you guys support. And I'm curious if you have any highlights, aha's, bright moments of what the community has seen and their ability to raise money from their own income to really support a lot of these groundbreaking projects that you guys are working on. I can think about, I mean, not this current process because we're still raising, but the pilot process that we did in 2016, which was, we raised $10,000 from 175 community members then we received matching money from Boston Impact Initiative, the working world and LISC Boston. And so in a day, we allocated $20,000 in loans and we definitely received across the board positive feedback from people present who said it was inspiring. And for me, that is a key moment in the Jewish trajectory. I think that that was the only way really we could have enrolled community members was to have something successful. And so I think of something Jessica had said to me, well, not to me, but to a smaller room of people a little while ago. And I'm also just thinking of Noni just kind of talking about the history of black people in this country. There's a history of hope and failure. And so I think definitely pressures that black people move with is wanting to be hopeful. And one of the things that I've loved about Ujima is giving our communities permission to try and to experiment and possibly fail and also understand that we have community members who have that deep history. And so for some of our community members, it better go off, it better work. You can't just come and talk about something. You have to do it and you have to be able to show that it works. And so we did see that with a pilot. And I think if we were not able to pull that off, we would not have community enrollment in this. Everybody else might be excited about it, but community members would feel differently, I think. As you guys are still raising all the monies. I'm not sure it is true that, well, I don't know, I kind of want to give time to go to the next question. Well, yeah, well, good timing. We just got the time's up card. So we'd love to kind of pivot towards our Q&A. We're going to stop live streaming for this next portion. I plan for the group.