 Okay, the recording will be made available on the meeting page. But before I start, I want to welcome Hart Montgomery, who's the newly installed, maybe not that new, but newly installed CTO of Hyperledger. Hart and I go back, way back, since the beginning of Hyperledger. So I would like Hart to say a couple of words before he drops off, if he wants to, that is. Sure. I'm happy to say hello. Yeah, it's great to see you, Vipin. Yeah, we have been working in Hyperledger since the very beginning. And I'm excited to have the opportunity to continue to move forward with you all. So I'm mostly here just to listen today. As I said in the chat, I do have to drop early, unfortunately. But I just want to hear all the exciting stuff that you all have to say. So thanks a lot. Exciting for some. But anyway, so the main point that I want to make is if we want to participate in something like the OpenCPDC project, then we have to contribute something technical. And Hart is the man to lead us there, especially in the cryptography arena. So I'll go into a little bit of detail on OpenCPDC project when I start my presentation. And of course, people are welcome to interrupt me at any time and ask questions or contribute their thoughts to what's going on here. With CBDC, I'm not talking about world events in general, but just this particular topic. And so I'm going to start a presentation, share my screen and start with that. But it looks like I'm having problems with this. It's very strange. This sharing thing has not been worked out properly by yesterday I was struggling with, what do you call it, with the Webex and they couldn't PowerPoint as a virtual background. I think they have changed the UI for this. See that? Everybody can see this screen here? Yeah, what we can see that? I'm going to start a slideshow. So hopefully you'll see the full screen without looking at all the details on mine. Seems good. Anyway, so we're going to go through executive order of the president, which is the framing conceit of this whole CBDC thing. Then a short aside on geopolitics and CBDC, which seems to be missing from the conversation, but is there in a big way in almost everything that everybody says about it? Then we go a slightly deep dive into open CBDC, which is the GitHub project, but it's also based on the project Hamilton paper that was published by the Fed. And we have our own response to the Fed from led by Sandy of the 22 questions that we are going to respond to. That was the initial ask from the Fed, not directly related to the open CBDC or the project Hamilton, because project Hamilton is only a very small part of the Fed's response. And as the executive order makes it clear, we'll see why. And of course, like I said, you are welcome to interrupt me at any time. So the executive order is the first acknowledgement of digital assets by the United States executive does not directly address any deliverables, although reading the commentary one has the impression that they're going to start working on CBDC in six months, but that's not true. So the only deliverables they directly address are reports, more reports, of course, white papers reports. It's widely hailed by the crypto community because they didn't read it. I have a feeling they didn't read it, but at least it acknowledges the existence of this huge class of assets. And it's actually proposing ways to address it. So the contents, there are policy objectives, all the things that you read about here, but the fourth bullet, CBDC is what we'll be focusing on because everything else is sort of talking about digital assets in general. And the policy lays out the topic saying it's because of the swelling size and scope of digital assets in the world. Well, Biden cites $3 trillion in November, but I think it is slightly more diminished today because prices of all the digital assets that he talks about. I mean, when he says digital assets there, he's only talking about non-state digital assets, not state backed. And he talks about data privacy security, which is kind of interesting because it's the first item on the list when the president's office puts out this exhibit order. The first item is data privacy and security, which should not surprise us because in Europe, for example, that was cited as one of the most important items. Then of course, financial stability and systemic risk crime, which is a popular topic in crypto currencies, national security. And the last one, I mean, all the exercise human rights, financial inclusion and equity. And the last one of course, energy demand and climate change is also another topic that is being discussed at length in crypto Twitter and other places where the crypto addicts converge. So this might seem like a dense list of agencies, but the main thing to understand is that the coordinators are the assistant to the president for national security affairs. So national security is the first item. The second is the economic policy. So you get a glimpse of the priorities and the interagency process, which consists of all these different departments. First, it's a enumeration of the cabinet itself, except for the secretary of transportation and EPA and other department of home security is there. And if you look at it, it's pretty much, I would say 80% of the government agencies. I mean, it's comprehensive list of everybody and anybody. Plus, of course, it closes with the Federal Reserve and CFPB, FTC, SEC, CFTC, FDIC and OCC. So it's almost like, okay, the whole government is involved in this process. And I don't know who's going to write this report, but I think it is going to be the secretary of the Treasury. It's going to lead the effort and by within 180 days, they're going to produce this report. And of course, the report lists all the items that we've seen before. But I just made bold the items that focus on what I think is geopolitical concerns. All right? Because this, at least three or four of those items can be said to be addressed geopolitical concerns. So I tried to sketch out something, but let me stop you. Because right now, this is pretty much, I just created this from my brain, sort of looking at all this stuff. But if anybody has any comments so far, before we dive into the open CBDC project, because I'll discuss the technical details a little bit before this. But if anybody has any comments, it would be great to hear. Not seeing anyone raising their hands, I don't think I can see people raising their hands. Or you got off mute, Sandy, so at least. Yeah, I just unmute it. No, I agree. In fact, I agree that I think this will, like you mentioned, I think this is still something you just want to put together in the beginning. So this will be an important thing to look into because there's many different facets here. Like obviously, like you mentioned, like who's really going to be putting together the standards. And like we all know, if there are 20 standards and there are 100 standards, that doesn't mean there's a standard. So I think that's an important point that's going to come down to when we're defining these CBDC standards. And especially like all the interoperability point of views, how are those things going to go? And then which body is like, whether it's going to be BIS or it could be IMF or who could be coming up with those kind of standards. And will they be accepted by other parties too? Yeah, I mean, the BIS is already doing some experiments. In fact, they had an announcement, I think yesterday, Project Dunbar. Before that, they had the MCBDC and before that, they had the Nexus project. Nexus was supposed to be based on existing fast payment systems MCBDC is Building Bridges and Project Dunbar presumably demonstrates the disappearance of correspondent banks. And of course, all of these are for cross-border payments and remittances. Well, actually, if I may interrupt for a second, I think that's something I find interesting when a lot of people talk about disappearance of the correspondent banks. And in some instances, that makes sense that, okay, well, that's going to bring in speed and expediency. But does that also bring in more market risk? Does that also bring in more risk? Because now you're dealing with direct counterparties also. No, it's not direct counterparties. In the end, the banks in each location are going to be talking to the other location without the use of correspondent banks, which are a tertiary layer if you may. So the tertiary layer is there because of the current setup of exchange. But in the end, you've got to have a way to discover a price because cross-border implies FX conversion. And discover does not mean just discover, but somebody has to come and say, yes, I'm going to exchange X for Y at this rate, and I will provide it. I mean, you can't just say, oh, you know, this is the rate in the market in the FX market or whatever. They're always going to create a spread to that, that will pay them for being participating. But what that spread is, and how much will it be, you know, today, the spread is anything the market will bear. In fact, we don't even know how much the spread could be because we have very little means of discovering the spot FX rate. So they'll just say, okay, if I send money dollars to India, I get through Western Union, I get one point, say 74.75. I'm just throwing out a number. But when I actually go to the spot rate, I see it is actually 76 or 77. And obviously, they are taking two rupees for every dollar that I'm sending. And if I send thousand dollars, that is 2000 rupees. That is, you know, quite a bit compared to, you know, I don't know how much Habala guys charge. But, you know, this is all assuming that we can do these things. But again, financial sanctions, how can you implement financial sanctions? Because financial sanctions have turned out to be an important component of the, you know, going to war without going to war. And there's always leakage. So there are certain choices you can do. The prominence of the wallets is what is going to control all of this. And are there privacy implications today? People do not hesitate to to out, you know, basically not be private with the social media and everything else. But whenever they say government, people's hackles are raised. But really speaking, you're in great danger today from people like Facebook and Google. In fact, I'm sure that when I created this in Google Docs or Google Slides or whatever, it's all there. I mean, you know, they're especially if I use Chrome in spite of the fact that I'm preventing them from harvesting. I mean, at least I'm setting certain things that increases my privacy, but doesn't mean that they're not looking at some of these things, at least in the aggregate. So government use, use.gov. What is that? I think use.gov. I can just make a comment on the Chrome thing. Yes. So if you want to impose financial sanctions using CBDC wallets, how are you going to do it? You have to do it at the edge. Somehow send a message to the wallet saying that you cannot transfer. But then how do you do it when if the wallet remains offline, if offline capabilities are permitted? So integration with the capital markets happens because we are going to have some form of omnibus wallets in custody, which we talked about last time with the bond evalue platform where the payment is happening off chain. But even if you want to integrate it closely with the chain, then you may have to have third parties. And of course, self custody wallets, we don't even know how that those would participate in the capital markets. You know, for example, I want to buy bonds. How am I going to get my money, my payment done? Yeah. So heart is, of course, was a maven on tracking has sent out a chat message talking about how pervasive tracking is. So open CBDC, I want to talk about open CBDC. So open CBDC architecture, which is yet another, you know, we could spend the whole day, whole call on the initial part of this. But I'm just going fast over this stuff, because I think it's important is that these are technical. So there's somebody here. So it is a UTXO based UHS abstraction that is underlies both of them, both of the architecture architectures proposed. Some people have made much of the fact that one or the other, the second one, especially is not a blockchain. But they forget to think about what exactly that means. Because if you can somehow secure transactions in blocks by cryptographic linkage, however you do it, which is the way it is being done anyway, in both of them, one of them has so let's go down the list of the common stuff, which is a geodistributed data center, data center, they say, because they are only on AWS. And I'm actually proposing a multi cloud solution to them. The other one, and we get get to that in a second, open source CBDC first to be open sourced, and is written in C++, which is a familiar language to me. And I have already downloaded and forked the open CBDC DX, that's what it's called, because it's transaction based. And they also have some deployment and production controls, production objectives here, which is RTO or the RTO. The RTO is, these are familiar constructs for recovery. One is recovery time, which means the system will not be down for more than x seconds. And the recovery point, which is you hear it says recovery point of zero, which means that no transactions will be lost when the system goes down. Normally when you have a backup, obviously when the start of the backup happens, that's the RPO, meaning recovery point, not objective, but recovery point. So unless you have huge numbers of backups. So this system, which replicates transactions similar to a blockchain, will have a RPO of zero. That is their objective, anyway. So there's two architectures. One is the atomizer and one is a two-pace commit. And in the atomizer architecture, you can see that everything goes, so you have the user wallets at the outer edge, then you have the sentinels, which actually do see all the details of the transaction. And the transaction is then sharded and privacy procedure is done in three. So sentinels do see everything, but they do not keep any of that state. But if they wanted to, they could, but this is part of the design. And it gets transformed into the UHS, the UTXO gets transformed into the UHS. And then they have the atomizer, which is the blockchain based, sorry, chat. The atomizer is doing a, let me put it this way, a global ordering. And the watchtower itself is only a way for the wallets to get notified. Number six, it's a pool type situation. That means wallets ask the watchtower has a transaction gone through, and the watchtower responds in seven. So it's not an event transmission type architecture. It is more of a pool. And the archiver, of course, goes into archiving the some of the transactions. Anyway, I'm not going to go into the details, but note the difference in the second, in the next two phase commit architecture. It's a relative ordering. It doesn't mean that one transaction can override another transaction because these are separated. And the maximum, I didn't mention the maximum throughput demonstrated is 270K in the other architecture. And this is 1.7 million transactions. And geo replicated latency is less than one second. And in the other one, it's two seconds. But anyway, these are all monster rates, because even if you look at the payment systems in the whole United States, at least it's only about 100K transactions per second. And if you have 170, you've more than achieved the goal, but you know, they're worried about scaling worried about, you know, the future. The two things that you see here are one is here, this is a horizontal scaling, which means that you add more resources, the system scales. In this case, they claim that the system seems to scale almost infinitely, which is probably not the case. But they are saying that that's what's happening. But in the other case, because there is a bottleneck, it needs some form of vertical scaling. So the difference between vertical and horizontal scaling is vertical scaling, you increase, you fatten a single system, you know, by adding more cores, more, more disk, more computing power and so on. But in horizontal scaling, you basically take off the shelf software, I mean, hop the set of hardware, and then you start making the system scale that way, which is of course meant to be the better way of scaling things. So in this two-phase commit architecture, horizontal scaling is possible. So that's another good point about this. And some people have said, oh, this is not a blockchain because it's sharding. But as you know, Ethereum is going for sharding and proof of stake. So, you know, when you make these kind of binary decisions in your head, you have to think about what exactly does that mean? You know, we are not marketing folks. We don't have to talk about this in a very general sense. Anyway, so as you can see there, you know, the atomizer has disappeared and the shards are now horizontally scaled. But there is a transaction coordinator, but it's not just one transaction coordinator, it's transaction coordinators and it's replicated. And the same Sentinel exists. And then of course, you know that the archiver and the watchtower have disappeared because there seem to be some, in NINE, there seem to be some kind of an event push to the use of wallets. Anyway, now we come to the end of that particular topic, OpenCBDC. This is the response to the friend led by Sandy. So, I want him to say what, if he wants to talk about this, that would be great. But I have my own sort of views on the matter. But I have tried to lay it out here in a very succinct slide, but with links. Yeah, thank you. Actually, I was just trying to put together like if, I don't know if you had a chance to look, I've put together like a high level timeline on the SVDP waking page. And again, first of all, my apologies. You know, this of course, we started this thing almost a month or so ago. There hasn't really been a lot of, you know, obvious over-the-surface movement. I've been actually like reading up on this, like some of the points, I haven't been able to compile them together yet. But what I'm thinking is, according to the timeline I've put together, which is of course the proposed timeline, I'm hoping that, like I don't know if you can actually bring that up. Yes, I can. Just a second. On the wakey page. Let me stop sharing for a moment. Yeah, no. And then we can bring up the other share. Let me see here. This is always a, okay, maybe I could have done it. Now that thing has disappeared completely. So response to the Fed. I actually, I think I got this right here. I can share this if you want. Yes, please. Okay, let me just do this really quick. Okay, right here. Yeah, there you go. Okay. There hasn't really been, I mean, there hasn't really been like a lot of work here yet. But I just put this timeline here. So everybody needs to take a look at this. And I'm thinking we can finalize the list of questions that we want to respond to. So as we know, there are 22 questions in all. And we haven't really put in these separate reviews for each one of them yet. But we can take a look at those 22 questions and then see whoever wants to respond on which one. Anybody can pick anything they like to and compile their notes. And but if you just look at the timeline here, I'm thinking we should try to complete the research on the selected questions by 15th. Then we can have some back and forth here like draft and compile this together here. And have the peer review completed by end of April. And basically finalize the research paper by the 6th and submit it by the 13th. Now, obviously, like you said, we've been obviously people are free to publish their own responses. This is purely just that if you want to have a combined brainstorming session on the response. And because we have to submit responses, I think one question in time. So it doesn't need to be a one single compiled paper. But I think it might be helpful to have a one single compiled, you know, like a Google Doc or something. So when we are reviewing it together, it might actually make it easier to review the whole thing together. Right. And then I actually just added a couple of links down here yesterday. Yeah, I actually caught it in the in my. Yeah, yeah, actually, I saw that. Thank you very much. And and again, I mean, obviously, this is just a starting point. But again, like, for example, in the cell paper here, especially there, the policy guy over here, they do talk about like, if you have to use stellar as the blockchain, of course, that's their viewpoint, obviously being that there's more of their marketing thing to you. So but it does contain a bunch of important things in their estate. Like if I just bring this up here, like if we had to use stellar, what are the pros and cons of using like they just go down in here. And let me just see if I can bring this down here. Sorry, some loading. All right, like right here. So they did do talk about the comparison of centralized and closed and open decentralized systems and various degrees of decentralization. And whether or not it makes sense to use blockchain or use a quasi blockchain. So just just as a reference point here. Obviously, this is stellar is, you know, a thing here. And in fact, I was looking at the the TPS that you were talking about, obviously, which comes from product Hamilton, like stellar is talking about five to 10. Obviously, if you have to use open CBC, CBC, that's just like obviously way larger than that, even if you don't really go with their 1.7 million. But even if it's in a few hundred thousand, there's still much, much higher than this. So. Yeah, but the point to be noted is, they still have a lot of important, important parts to solve. They are less than a toy at this point, you know. And of course, you can demonstrate huge throughput when you're like, when you're not actually dealing with a lot of things. They focus on privacy because the guys in Project Hamilton are Bitcoiners. And, you know, especially James Lovejoy is a Bitcoin core developer. So what I'm saying is if you get a bunch of guys who are Bitcoiners to develop this, you will get a system that looks very much like Bitcoin. You know, if you get a bunch of guys who are from Stellar, you'll get a system that looks very much like Stellar or at least similar. So this is the kind of openness that is lacking there. I mean, it's almost like, okay, you choose these guys, you're going to get this. So of course, it's very difficult to do a collaborative or a team-based approach. But the only thing we can do is to nudge that solution that they are proposed towards something that is practicable. Right? I mean, you can't just say, oh, I can't see anything. But everything is on the wallet side. And they don't even have a wallet. I mean, not a good wallet. Everything is done using a command line interface. But as you know, going from a command line interface into a really secure wallet is a tough job. Well, actually talking about the wallets, I think another important thing that comes up is that if there was supposed to be a wallet like, take the example of this consensus thing within Fiora, the MetaMask wallets, for example, then that brings an important question that if those wallets are going in through some central APIs, like Fiora APIs, which can then be controlled by the government, then you have a much, much higher degree of government control and where they can, or somebody can basically turn off the wallets at whoever has the command over there. So those things obviously come in. Of course, I definitely submit to the point you make that a lot of people are completely open on Facebook and the other channels, but they kind of quiver when it comes to the government oversight. So the government basically looking into any data. So there has to be some sort of a balance over there. But I think even the wallets, in terms of the self-custody wallets, exactly how that's going to happen, there's a lot of open questions over there. I think some of the open questions come in when people talk about, and this is obviously one of the 22 questions also out there, how open, I don't have the questions in front of me right now, but basically could it be tweeted completely like cash in the sense that how much of openness and how much of control the government could really have on the flow? So for example, if some vendors are using cash, they don't want to divulge exactly how much cash they're dealing with, will the CBDC usage actually force them to, just like they use cards today, will that force them to basically get on the tracker? Well, there are two important differences. Cash already supposed to have some regulations around it, like cross-border 10,000 more you're supposed to declare it. And most of the time the cash is used to evade taxes or something like that, but also for doing other things like which are not permitted. So it is mostly to evade all that stuff. Another thing about cash, which nobody brings up, but I did write about it earlier, which is the physical actual weight of cash. Like $1 million you can carry in a briefcase, okay? But $1 trillion, you need trucks, maybe even 10 or 20 trucks. I had actually calculated the weight of a $100 bill, that's the largest bill you can get. And how do you then, but if it's a digital wallet, $1 trillion can be held in an edge wallet with no problem. It's not like carrying 100 trucks filled with cash for $1 trillion. It's going to be just a mobile phone or some hardware wallet that has the access to that. I mean, obviously the cash itself is probably somewhere else, but it's a number. It's not anything else. So these considerations of physicality become very interesting because once you let go of that, that physicality, that means people can transact and evade controls if it's true privacy, right? You cannot stop people from taking $1 trillion from one place to another if you do not have some kind of a surveillance or anything. I mean, not just $1 trillion, any amount for that matter. But wallets, which the Chinese are building, for example, have tiers, less than $1,000 is considered without identification, more than $1,000, $1,000 to $3,000 is one tier. So you have to go through KYC. Anyway, so wallet design is a very important aspect of this. No, no, no, go ahead. I'm sorry, I was just trying to bring us to the list of questions, but I think that's it from my side open today. So I think in the show, what I'm going to be thinking and doing is this is a timeline that I proposed here, and I'm going to start picking up some of the questions here and just start putting some answers and some thoughts like, and I know, of course, like obviously substantiate whether some corresponding industry articles or some of the things. One thing I found here, as I was reading through the stellar paper, they've been actually working with a bunch of BIS folks, including I think Danielle, Aiden, I think you've been also in touch with them. So I was thinking it might actually make sense to even have some of these folks come and speak on our forum, if we can get them to, to go over some specific questions. Yeah, I mean, Daniel is one person. He's mostly involved in the cross-border stuff in the labs. I don't know whether he's working on anything else, but there's also a European lab. He's on the Hong Kong lab. Well, interestingly, even this one, I remember that one, even this one here, like if you just look at the names here. So they've been working with the the SDF CBDC working group, I don't know exactly who's a part of that. But then they do mention a bunch of other names here, from World Bank, from IMF and from BIS. Yeah, in fact, money who's on the call and myself, we presented to all of these big organizations, World Bank, IMF, maybe not to BIS, but to Bank of England, the Ethaler solution, which we had created. And it was one of the first, actually, strangely enough, that we did in the labs. And we had certain characteristics. It was more of a wholesale CBDC based on ERC 1155, strangely enough, which is an NFT standard. But we repurposed it to do this. But so, yeah, Daniel is definitely a known quantity to me. I don't know about these other guys. I don't think I know anybody there. I'm just reading through, but Harish Natarajan, we presented to actually from the World Bank. But they're all very close to book, kind of guys. But now the BIS seems to be open sourcing some stuff. And that's why I think the Open CBDC project is very important. It's the first really, you know, Project Hamilton is the first to open source the code itself. I'm not talking about white papers and stuff like that. The code. So I'll have to ask Daniel whether the code behind the MCBDC and everything else is actually open source. Right. That would be interesting. But going back to your thing, I think there is a bunch of names there. But it's the tragedy of the commons, because what happens is they all put the names, but nobody actually comes forward and contributes offline. And so, we have to write a couple of emails that tells the people in the list to say, okay, you know what? If you want this to be a real thing and your name to be associated with it, it's not enough to just put your name in a list. What are you actually bringing to the table? I'm sorry to act like this, but this is what I found that people do not contribute. Maybe there's something we're missing. I don't know. But I think this is a feature of feature slash bug of all open source. I agree. 80 to 90% of the work is done by like 5% or less of people. But when it comes to putting the name on the paper, yes, everybody wants the name there. This is, you know, even in this group, it's the same thing. It takes a lot of effort to get people to make a presentation. So I don't know how we're going to get this task force started. With respect to that aspect, we have to do something about it. Let me catch you offline on that. I'm in touch with Dr. Manmohan Singh. He's from IMF. But because internally they have to go through protocols to have any speaking session, so I might need your help to get him to come to the table for that. So he seemed to be willing, but like you said, I mean, it's always the bureaucratic part of things which kind of read them down to you. Yes, of course. So this is obviously not the Manmohan Singh, but the guy who's, is he IMF or is he BIS? No, IMF. And I think he's based in either Toronto or something. I'll check. I'll share the details with you. Yeah, he has written some interesting papers that I've read, but you know, I was confused. Oh, Manmohan Singh. Yeah, he's also an economist, but that's what I initially thought. Yeah, so it's a different Manmohan Singh. Yeah, so that's great. So let us actually put some words to paper. And about the last bit that you mentioned, which is the House of Lords, CBDC, a solution looking for a problem, right? Even that heading is plagiarized from Governor Waller, who did a similar talk back in August, and I wrote a response to that, very detailed, very detailed response about financial inclusion, about, you know, these are all political sort of things that happen because they always want to trumpet financial inclusion. Financial inclusion measurement is a tough thing, right? The FDIC comes up with the financial inclusion. So if you go to, if you search for Waller, you'll see the response. Yeah, yeah, I'll do that. Unfortunately, I do have a hard stuff at 10 today, so but I've read that paper, a weapon, I know, I know what you're talking about, yeah. Yeah, so just because the House of Lords published it, doesn't give it, you know, in my mind anyway, any validity except for the fact that it's a political stance, same as Waller's stance, you know, it's all about private money. Basically, they keep bringing the point back that private money is the solution. But they don't realize that current money in the US anyway is generated in a decentralized way, which means that every bank which has the capability is actually issuing, issuing dollars because once you make a, once they make a loan, which is nothing but an entry in a ledger, they can create money. Nobody, you know, everybody talks about the Fed printing money, but it is not the Fed. Most of the money is printed by commercial banks, at least before the pandemic. Anyway, so this is, you know, people are leaving, have already left, most of the people, participants have left except for Suma. Suma, you want to say anything about all this stuff or are you not wanting to talk? We have two minutes left before the, before the call is over. I think we can safely say that we've covered a lot of ground. That presentation I knocked together, but it's, you know, talks about the equity order, the geopolitical implications, OpenCVDC project, and then our own response to the Fed. So with that, I think we stop here. Thanks for showing up, Sandy. You're welcome. Thank you. I think you've been, I agree. I think we need to divvy up work so we can get some real meeting there. I totally agree. Yeah, maybe the thing is to start, start it off so that maybe even in a provocative way so that people respond. Yeah. Instead of, you know, yeah, all right. And I'll start putting some, some of these answers together to some of these questions and then we can keep trying again. And let's, let's take it from there. So yeah, hopefully we'll stick to this timeline that we have here and give this going. Yes, thank you. Yeah. Thanks everybody. Well, the only other person here is Suma. So thank you. And we'll speak later. Yep. Thank you, Wipen. Thanks for still heading. Let's be heading this. All right.