 All right. My name is Evan Miyazono. I have done research at Protocol Labs. I really tried to just make sure that we have the best research we can have and have as much of it as possible. And I've been thinking about how to reward innovation generally. This is going to be a very fast talk about some things that are half to this audience asking, does this sound insane? Have you heard or have you heard of something like this before and half to the video audience of if this sounds interesting, would you be interested in working on it? Feel free to reach out. Thinking about ways other than IP to reward innovation, the idea being that if you were in charge of or received as a private citizen some corporate R&D lab alone, how could you make sure that that was sustainable given that it creates good things but may not be easily monetizable? Often the best of labs in the past have been connected to some monopolistic-like entity like Xerox or Bell or the US government, for instance. And the intellectual property is one reasonable way to try to monetize things. There are different types of knowledge or different types of outcomes of innovation. I would highlight these four as reasonably useful categories, explicit knowledge being things that you can write down and share very easily, the knowledge that you know how to explain and you know to elicit in a conversation, the tacit knowledge that you may or may not be able to convey in an easy way. There's only the hard way to learn it and then generalized impact. In terms of tools for value capture, we have a bunch of these things. There's not intending to be an exhaustive list, but mostly I want to talk through some weird things that I don't think I've seen in other places. One of them being if you have explicit knowledge, I think it could be interesting to have something that looks like a derivatives trading desk. First, I'll talk about the tech-transferry partnership. As you might imagine, you could have, as part adjacent to a lab, a group that identifies if you are working on technology A, which is a competitor to alternative hypothesis technology B, there are companies out there that are probably making bets that A will succeed or that B will succeed. You could potentially partner with those companies and try to elicit some sort of non-dilutive no rights included funding for those directions to try and increase the funding to increase the likelihood of success, if that's influenceable. You could also imagine having those groups empower those groups to raise capital and invest in those companies based on the outcome of the experiments. One thing that is a really weird example of explicit knowledge that I think would not fall under any existing monetization strategy would be if you found that these three vitamins and aspirin managed to reduce symptoms of some particular cancer or Parkinson's or something, I don't think you can patent that. I don't think you can trademark it or license it effectively, but the companies that manufacture those things will probably see some change in demand or their stock price or something like that. As it stands, there's no real financial incentive to generate that knowledge. The question becomes, if you had something like these groups that could monetize in this way, could you have an institution that incentivizes that sort of knowledge creation? The derivative trading desk could be something as weird as their breakthroughs that say this form of quantum computing might be closer to reality than we previously thought. Most big tech companies are betting on some form of quantum computing. The question becomes, when that happens, do you the stock market is the canonical place to profit off of information? If you have information about which of these companies roadmaps seem more realistic, then you could imagine if you are partnered, I don't even know if it's technically insider. I would imagine it's not even insider trading if you know of a scientific result that is not being done by company A or company B, and you do a relative trade on the pairing between company and company B. If that is perfectly legal, then it would be very interesting to see if you could do something like that, build a model, try it out, and look at past data and see if you could predict changes in stock price relatively based on scientific intuition. If so, use that to go back and fund the lab, see if there is a reasonable risk-adjusted return compared to other things. One thing fun about tacit knowledge, this was the know-how that fierce was talking about previously. I really like the idea that you could potentially train more people more effectively and give them like, I'm picturing some weird grad school where you give people PhDs and you strap them with an income share agreement and you make them especially well prepared to do things that are incredibly valuable, knowing that you will see some upside because you will get some like your institution that's training them will get some equity in whatever startups they create that could be like these hard technical startups and suddenly everyone wants to do that because they know there are aligned incentives around trying to deliver that outcome. Also, I think impact certificates have been mentioned once or twice in passing. I'm not going to go in them here for timing reasons, but I think that it's really interesting to start talking about formalization of bragging rights for impact and I think there are some interesting things that we're going to start doing in funding the commons, the conference that we're running in like every roughly quarterly next one's in New York and it will be I think very compelling to create use cases for those bragging rights. If you create a social culture where it's normalized to brag and have one of these things to brag, then it starts creating and ceding demand for these things. So anyway, that's everything I had. Thank you so much.