 Christina asks regarding the matter of Quadriga CX and the funds that are lost as the owner died holding the keys How can you see this affecting encryption and regulation? It's an interesting question. Christina Quadriga CX is a Canadian exchange that recently went into bankruptcy proceedings in order to protect itself legally while it tries to find where it can get its funds to pay back its customers and The story apparently at the moment as far as we know is that the owner of the exchange had sole control over Keys that were what's called cold storage, which means that these were the long-term store of Bitcoin that are not put offline for security reasons they're not put online for security reasons and Apparently the owner of quadriga express Sorry, quadriga CX was the only person with access to these keys They died recently and as a result those keys are now lost It appears they were stored on an encrypted laptop or something like that I mean, this is a perfect example of the risks of third-party custody over keys I've used this expression many many times. You've probably heard it being chanted as a mantra Not your keys not your coins or not your keys not your Bitcoin not your keys not your crypto Basically the same idea is that you should be very careful trusting third parties to hold your money This applies to any Domain of money, but it applies especially with cryptographic digital money because It's actually easier to steal Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies when you put it all in one place and control it by one person It's also easier to lose it Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies maintain their security through Decentralization the idea is that if in order to rob a thousand people you have to break into a thousand wallets on A thousand different computers some of which are hardware mobile software desktop, etc That's very difficult to do you have to pull off essentially a thousand heists But if those thousand people deposit all of their crypto and give that crypto to one person who controls all of the keys Now you only need to hack one wallet in order to get a thousand times the keys or Only one set of keys needs to be lost for a thousand people to lose their money And this is exactly what's happened in this case. How does it affect encryption and regulation? It doesn't really it doesn't change anything about either of those categories It's Arguably as I said when I did my testimony to the Canadian Senate It's important to think about institutions that hold Bitcoin on behalf of other people Custodial accounts like that as very similar to banks and put them under the same type of scrutiny because they concentrate risk And they have control over people's funds and that introduces significant risks risks of Resilience and contingency planning and disaster recovery and business continuity In the case of a founder's death, for example, but also theft and hack and Reserves and and whether they actually have the money that they claim to have And as I've suggested Regulating the decentralized control over keys is unnecessary and regulating the centralized control of the keys is both necessary and And something the government should be doing but of course we don't see that in the space There's a lot of sloppy security So hopefully what this does is it doesn't change encryption It doesn't change regulation really what it does is it teaches people the lesson again that Apparently needs to be told again and again and again and again and we need to see Exchanges fail again and again and again before people learn the fundamental lesson of not trusting third parties with their cryptocurrency