 What is your take on all the ICOs that happen almost every day? The ICO craze. I look at this space, and I think of it in terms of having to be comfortable with a tiny bit of cognitive dissonance, more specifically temporal dissonance. Meaning, let's take two ideas and see if we can squeeze them in our head at the same time. Idea number one. Initial coin offerings, tokenization of startups, products, and services will completely transform the world of crowdfunding. Then it will completely transform the world of venture capital and fundraising at every level, and it will bridge the gap from the smallest organic fundraise all the way to the unicorn level, initial public offerings on stock markets, and disrupt them too. Over the next 15 years, this is going to ripple out like a tsunami across the entire financial industry. It is unstoppable. It opens up a global pool of investment to a global pool of investors. It allows any startup to rapidly not only raise money, but use a single token for dividends, access control, product offering, notification, voting, participation, and all of the other functions you can jam into a token that are so much more than simply raising money. It is unstoppable, it is enormous, and it's going to shake the world. Second idea. 99.999% of all the ICOs right now are shit. They are a complete junk. They will return nothing. They will cause lawsuits. They will result in regulators pulling out their big hammers and hammering everything that looks like a nail futile. They will force jurisdictional arbitration. They will create panics in the market. They will create backlashes in the market. They will create government responses that are completely knee-jerk. They are going to damage the price, volume, volatility of every digital currency that is involved in them. They will continue to erupt like little blooming bushes of bullshit all across the industry. 20 today, 200 today, tomorrow, 300 ICOs, none of which I've ever heard of, all trying to do the same, stale, boring ideas without a team, without maturity, without a plan, without a product, with nothing but a strong desire to strike it rich and retire on a beach. Nothing is going to go back to investors. 99.999%. The question is, can you hold those two ideas in your head simultaneously because they are both true? Total shit right now completely revolutionized the world of finance within the next 15 years, both of those things. In fact, the only way you get to the completely revolutionized finance is by running numerous experiments with high liquidity that are complete shit and failing on all of those and training investors to choose better next time, rinse and repeat thousands of times, and a new financial system is born. Kyle Thompson from ESA, you let it to my question really well there, which is, I've not learned the voice in the room, but this is a question about rules. As you said, a lot of these ICOs are as you put it, shit. Is there a fussy, is there a danger that through that the rules that emerge around them are, governments are going to be very reactionary and say, well, this was clearly a mistake, and now let's put very stringent rules in around it, and a lot of the rules that have been built up around investing, your initial price invested earlier, whether right or wrongly implemented, and whether they lead into a system of control, they're designed to protect the public. So, do you think that the crypto industry needs to start to adopt certain levels of self-regulation, and if so, what are the mechanisms that can actually be put in place to start to adopt the basic system of rules to protect people, as you said, inside or outside of the kind of financial system? Well, a couple of things. First of all, I think the assertion that these rules have been designed to protect consumers, perhaps designed, but whether they actually work and are effective in protecting consumers, rather than creating a built-in system of inequality between tiers of investors and leaving most outside, I would very much question that. The rules as they exist cannot possibly keep up with the volume, liquidity, and movement and innovation in this space, cannot possibly keep up. We talk about VCs being disrupted, we talk about banks being disrupted, and one of my favorite topics that seems to pass underneath everybody's view is the fact that regulators are being disrupted more than anything else. Regulators are rapidly being obsolete. They have the desire, they have the authority, they do not have the means, they do not have the control structure to actually achieve enforcement of any of these rules in any of these markets. And what will happen is they will announce, they will regulate, they will put rules in place, and those rules will be properly ignored, probably by the most powerful people in that country first, followed by everybody else, who knows how to set up a tour network, or VPN tunnel, an account on an exchange outside their country, or anything else. And it will all hinge on the fundamental principle that digital currencies that are uncensorable are uncensorable, and therefore you cannot stop people from participating in ICOs. The whole idea that investments should be vetted, in my opinion, is problematic, because it puts enormous power into those who do the vetting, and it also removes responsibility from investors to do the vetting themselves and creates a false sense of security. And so what do they vet? Well, they vet large tranches of credit default swaps that contain a thin sliver of AAA rated mortgages, riding on top a giant pile of shit. I like using that word when it comes to finance. And they then tell you, this is AAA. These are the people protecting consumers. This is what they did. And there was zero consequence for the cartel of the three rating agencies that did that. There was zero change in the model. And guess what they're doing now? They're doing it again with credit default swaps and tranches of mortgage-backed securities that are piles of junk with a little garnish on the top. They're doing it again, and they will keep doing it again. These are the people protecting consumers. They do not protect consumers. Millions lost their homes as a result of that, and they weren't investors. They didn't consider their mortgage to be a security interest. Now, what's going to happen with ICOs? What do I hope to see? The education of investors. You do not bring in people to fight the wolves. You armor the sheep. And how do you armor the sheep with education? And how do you educate investors about making better choices? You let them make bad choices. Nothing will educate an investor faster than a bad choice that causes them to lose their money. Governments of the world should be doing massive education campaigns, giving people the financial tools they need, teaching these things in every school, as to how to analyze and research and determine which investments are suitable and which investments are junk. You cannot help people protect themselves against themselves. All you do when you try to do that is invest enormous power into yet another layer of elites who get to decide what is an investor, what is an accredited investor, and what is a good investment, and then they lie. I don't want to see self-regulation. I want to see education of investors. Unfortunately, the best way to do that is to give them a lot of money that they didn't expect to suddenly earn through massive appreciation of an asset that they weren't really expecting to appreciate just as fast, and then let them spend it on junk. Lesson has started. School is in session. A year from now, a lot of people will be a lot more careful about ICOs. Simple.