What's up freedom family it is Sada aka Dougie Mac bringing you another video Now with my with my thought on helping as many people as I can I've got some really cool stuff working in the background But that's gonna take a little bit of time to develop and get some things sort of happening with like a website And I've got some really cool things in the pipeline But what I want to ask you today is would you like for me to hold a Google hangout maybe twice a week at different time zones So that way we can sort of get everybody around the world a fair chance to Just sort of come on board and ask some questions and maybe do some live review of channels I give some certain suggestions maybe give some people ideas on what to what content to create and You know just bring it together as a community So what I would like from you guys in the comments down below is to let me know if this is a good idea Should we schedule this and also what time would you like for this to happen? So again, I would like to hold to I'll stay awake to whatever time in the morning or in the in the evening To try and sort of get as best communication as I can to you guys to try and help the channels grow and Like I said, we might better get Anthony back in These Google hangouts maybe for one or two because I know who used to do these and they were they seem to be fairly popular so I was thinking that maybe I could bring them back and we'll have some fun just hang out for a little while and Can't see if we can make the freedom family grow even stronger, so Remember to like favorite comment subscribe in the comments down below Let me know what time is best for you and we'll see if we can't get something close So thank you for watching guys. My name is Sara. Okay. Thank you Mac and I'll see you in the next video And we will grow together as a family because this is the freedom family You are part of it. We are all part of it and we're all growing together so grow with us and Partner with freedom that play now button right there on the video bar is all you need to click to get Started your secrets. If you really look at yourself, you will be speechless What happened to being doctors and teachers? What happened to being your brothers keep it?


This is Mises weekends with your host Jeff dice Ladies gentlemen welcome back once again. It's time for Mises weekends as you can see we're joined By mark Thornton who's one of our senior fellows here at the Institute mark you were on I think RT earlier this week talking about among other things The great unwinding the Fed announced this week on Wednesday that it would begin to back off the quantitative easing It's been engaged in since about 2008 and the crash that it would start reducing shrinking Albeit very slowly the Fed's balance sheet and the Wall Street Journal has been running with this for several days in a row as one of its Leads stories. What will this mean for markets? technically, how will it be? consummated etc, so I Just want to talk to people a little bit about what this might mean from an Austrian perspective First of all for people who aren't as familiar Mechanically talk about how this happened. How what was QE and and how did the Fed's balance sheet go from about 800 billion in? 2008 to about four and a half trillion today just ten years later. Well, it's a great transformation Jeff The Fed's balance sheet before the crisis was not even a trillion dollars with 800 and some billion dollars And it was all short-term government Borrowing that they were that they had on their balance sheet now since then they've transformed their balance sheet into about four and a half Trillion dollars and they've basically gotten rid of a lot of the short-term government debt They've added a lot of long-term government debt and they've added of course the the mortgage money as well Mortgage bonds and so we've had since the crisis of course they reduced interest rates to zero or close to it And then they engaged in quantitative easing one quantitative easing to an operation twist and basically with quantitative easing The Fed is buying government bonds and they're buying mortgage-backed securities And they're giving reserves out to whoever selling them so basically that's money that went into the banks as they relieve themselves of government debt and of Mortgage-backed securities and so that's where the bulk Of the Fed's balance sheet is right today is in these long-term government bonds and mortgage-backed securities Well, I'd love to see some sort of analysis of how many of those mortgage-backed securities are toxic or became toxic after away So this is sort of a roundabout way We would argue anyway of monetizing debt now It's not as direct as having the Treasury simply print money To buy an extinguished Treasury debt outright. This is a more roundabout process whereby Mostly commercial banks sell treasuries to the Fed in exchange for new bank reserves now That's base money. It's not necessarily out there in the money supply and circulation but Does is this a form of of monetizing government debt and if so is it is it purposely? Obscured from the American public is hard for the public to follow and understand. Well, that's the whole Fed Game plan is to obscure what's really going on here with traditional monetization The Treasury would print up dollar bills and they would buy government bonds from the general public and from banks And then they wouldn't owe the money back in this case the Fed buys the government securities from banks and They give banks electronic printed money essentially And so it's an electronic Transfer and then of course with the four and a half trillion dollars of assets that the Fed has they earn interest income on all of that and What they do is they use that interest income to pay for their expenses and whatever's left over They give back to the Treasury. So the Treasury I think is getting close to a hundred billion dollars Kickback from the Fed in all this and of course it's it's isolating Government debt and it's helping to keep the interest on government debt Most importantly it's keeping the interest rate on government debt very very low if they were allow Market rates to rise and the rates on government debt rose as well You would see the federal government's expenditure just on interest rise by hundreds of billions of dollars from its Current position, which is very very low, right, but from what I've read it could easily go It's about 250 billion a year could easily go to one trillion The single largest line item on the on the entire US budget. Yeah, that's right. And you know It wouldn't take very much as a matter of fact. I expect Market rates to rise fairly significantly Over the next couple of years the two-year government note has risen Noticeably over the last year or so And so all indicators are that interest rates are going to have to rise and that Jenny Yellen's behind the curve We know that the US dollar is a little different than other currencies for a variety of reasons one It's the world's reserve currency for settling international transactions OPEC countries You know price oil and dollars Obviously, it's backed by the enormous US government also by the US military might but conceptually Han Sapa said something I think it is PS PS commerce a couple years ago This is a magic process if governments could just spend more than they bring in in taxes You even tax zero and then create money to buy back that debt and hold it And this could create wealth Why doesn't every country on earth every central bank on earth simply do this? That's a very good question. I get asked that quite a bit, you know, because people out there in the general public They they read once they find out what's going on They want to get in on the action too The problem with that approach, of course is that you would end up with lots of price inflation lots of distortions in the economy And you could do very easily translate into a hyperinflation because people would realize the obviousness of the monetization of the debt and the impact that that was going to have on prices and you know as Mises said You know, there's three phases To an inflation one is where the general public is willing to hold all the new money in the account That's being injected in the economy. They just see it as you know more income more savings more cash balances and so At that point the central bank gets away with it and then as price inflation becomes More noticeable people are no longer willing to add to their cash balances and so there's more spending and more price inflation and Then the third phase is when people realize that this is never gonna stop that they're gonna be relentless with this process And then they decrease their cash balances So there's more spending relative to production at that point and prices start rising rapidly and people start Depleting their cash balances as quickly as possible and you end up with a hyperinflation. It's like musical chairs It is like musical chairs Well, I want to talk a little bit about the media I feel like the financial press is is overly credulous in the way it talks about central bankers Yellen this week is being praised for her steady hand on the wheel and she's gonna unwind The feds balance sheet slowly with an eye towards the market tremors But we always imagine that that Fed governors are so omniscient and so wise, but we we have a short memory Let me just read you quote. This is from James Bullard back in 2010 After QE got started. He said well the the FOMC has often stated It's intention to return the Fed balance sheet to normal pre-crisis levels over time. That means 08 which means 800 Billion dollars, but this week the Wall Street Journal is reporting that even if This unwinding happens between now and 2020 as Yellen hopes it does We'd still be somewhere between two and a half and three point five trillion in assets. So They're not going to return to that level A year or so ago at the Jackson Hole Conference, Ben Bernanke the former chair said well We may never unwind the balance sheet at all So we get these different signals from Fed people over the years at different times depending on conditions But nobody ever seems to bring up the inconsistencies of the past now Is this something inherent? In our media is there something inherent in our economy that we just want to believe these guys and gals Well, it certainly is the case that the chairman of the Fed and the vice chairman of the Fed have you know Their role is to lie to the public and so they're lying to the media that they go give speeches at professional Conferences and basically they're there to mislead The people who are listening You should never have listened to Alan Greenspan until he left office You never listened to Ben Bernanke, of course until he leaves office and the same is true with Janet Yellen She was saying for years that she's gonna return to normal interest rates And yet ten years after the fact we're still at 1% on the federal funds rate Which is below the rate of price inflation So, you know that tells you where we are right now and now they said this past week They're going to start Undwinding the balance sheet but think of how long it was before between when Yellen started saying she was going to normalize interest rates And when she first started raising rates And now she's saying that she's going to unwind the balance sheet But is she really or how long is it going to take if if she implements the ten billion dollars a month In terms of selling off government assets, that's I think six billion in treasuries and four billion in mortgages That's less than two two-tenths of one percent of their balance sheet. So at that rate, they would never really Get rid of their balance sheet or bring it back to normal and really two-tenths of one percent is Almost as if you're doing nothing at all. So even if they implement it It's unlikely that they're gonna accelerate that process very quickly So what they say they're gonna do and what they actually do I think are gonna be two completely different things Well, considering where we are central banks exist central bank the Fed controls the US dollar in effect along with the Treasury There's there's several vacancies on the Board of Governors. There's going to be another one when Stanley Fisher steps down If you could appoint whoever you want. Is there anything that a John Allison or a Joselina or a Mark Thornton or a You know, even a Paul Volcker could do Right now. Is there is there a better way to approach this unwinding? The damage has already been done. So there's no way you're going to work around The problem without economic pain. There's no way to smoothly navigate this river There are the rapids are in front of us in other words and so You're gonna see a lot of Difficult mail adjustments to all the mail investments that have taken place now, of course the general recommendation of Austrian economists So if Jim Grand or Joe Salerno were appointed, they would want the Fed to return To normalize interest rates. They'd want to cut the Fed off from Influencing interest rates and allow the market to take over and unfortunately when the market takes over even if rates don't rise very rapidly You're gonna see a lot of bankruptcies a lot of zombie corporations going under a lot of subprime Auto loans going under as they are right now. So it would accelerate that process But that's the necessary process process of adjustment That you have in any business cycle. It's just this is a very long drawn-out Sort of a boom phase of the economy where the Stimulation of monetary policy has has had effects. There's no doubt about it, but it's all very artificial When it's so political what president wants to preside over? ripping off the Band-Aid When was the last time a Fed chair really went against the current administration? I would say Paul Volcker is is about the last time and Paul Volcker may have been one of the only times where he raised rates to ring out price inflation out of the economy of Inflation expectations what I was talking earlier about mesas is three phases of inflation If we did it now You wouldn't have as much Expectation problem at least what you'd have is all the male investments that have been created Since 2008 that's where the real problem. That's where they where it's really gonna hurt but we we don't have as much in the way of Inflationary expectations built into the system right now Well mark, I love your point if we should only listen to Fed chairs after they retire I think it's a great point. You notice that Alan Greenspan has been speaking a little bit more favorably about gold In the years since he's been in that said mark. Thanks so much for your time It's a very very important topic for all this ladies and gentlemen. Have a great weekend Subscribe to Mises weekends via iTunes you stitcher and SoundCloud or listen on mises.org and YouTube


And we're here to discuss a little bit today. We'll show you a little bit of what we've been working on in kind of a fun little new tool that hopefully will be helpful to the community. But also we really just wanted to talk about some of the thought process that we're going through in what it really means to be creating the kind of decentralized quote-unquote applications and that it's not just about the types of networks that we're building, but about the entire type of architecture that we're using and also the processes that we use to create and manage and maintain and extend these kinds of networks. So what are we trying to do here? Are we really trying to drive adoption of a specific protocol? If we're all here because we all agree that we like one kind of protocol, how does that incentivize us to act differently when new things come out? Do we really want to decentralize all the things and put everything on the blockchain? Probably not, hopefully not. If you're in the back, you might not be able to see what I hope we're actually working on, which is building applications that challenge systemic power structures empower humans and foster consent. And honestly, I don't really care how we get there. So, hence the Webernext. I'm wearing my Webernext shirt today. So who can tell me the difference between Web 3, Web 3.0, the decentralized Web, Dwebs, DApps, replicated state machines? Yeah, nobody knows. So that's why I was like, I can't rationalize all these different definitions. I'm just going to call it the Webernext. We're on the Webernext now. Next would be the Webernext. That's fine. And what that means to me is a couple of things. We're trying to build applications where data can be kept close to its point of origin. Trust is not required for most tasks. The low-level protocols might be censorship resistant. Applications may or may not be. You have principles of least privilege throughout the process. There's data portability. There's client interoperability. There's maybe a blockchain where it's helpful and not where it's not helpful. And user experience rivals or exceeds the current Web. We need to be able to challenge the existing business models that have made the centralized Web so powerful and figure out how we can achieve the goals that we're looking for. So if you saw Patrick at Web 3, so we're trying to drive adoption of a specific protocol. No, we are building applications that challenge systemic power structures and power humans and foster consent. Hence the Webernext. Okay, so there's some things that the Webernext can do for you. And here is the way that we're thinking through decentralized architectures. And you might have heard this at Web 3 Summit or at Crypto Springs. I kind of went through it. But the point being that maybe... What's that? I don't know. What does that say? Can you center it? Can you enhance that? Enhance Zoom? That says optional.  Why is that? It turns out that blockchains haven't been around that long and peer-to-peer systems have been around for three decades. And there are plenty of useful tools out there that people aren't using. And if we just keep going, la, la, la, we're here to do blockchain stuff. We fail to learn the lessons that those projects have learned and have tried but not succeeded in overcoming to become used as alternatives to these centralized things. So I think we need to be a little more... test ourselves a little more and say blockchain is not really the answer unless it solves a specific problem for this. But we do have... It's hard to do things which are not centralized. Indeed. So at every layer of the stack, though, there's this potential for points of power aggregation and for what I would consider to be kind of soft centralization to happen and things that we didn't really necessarily intend to happen and things that you can't necessarily code away at the protocol level. So, for example, if all of a sudden all of the research money is going to SGX and it turns out that everyone likes that as a privacy solution and people just happen to converge, which if you're a fancy tech bro, we would call a shelling point. But otherwise, we might just call a lot of people doing a common thing. Then maybe SGX becomes a point of centralization which involves corporate interest, et cetera. So do we need to guard against that? Maybe not. There's no reason that we need to max out skill points into centralization for everything. The point is simply to be aware of how the choices that we're making now have long-term impacts, similarly for heterogeneous cloud kind of deployments of several of these networks. If you're running some sort of permission network and it's within an entire single cloud, what's the long-term impact to that as when it becomes a vendor sticky and it becomes a cost-control issue, et cetera. I'm curious. Sheriff Hans, who in here has heard of SGX as a way to solve some blockchain-related problem. All right. So 30% of people? Are you like writing my name? Would it surprise you to learn that SGX has one signing key for all chips in the world and it's owned by Intel? Exciting times. Okay. So, right. So what are we working on at Clover? So the product with that is under development right now is our view and kind of our pitch to try to make this stuff more relevant to normal humans but also developers who come from both inside and outside of the space. So if you can see on the screenshots, we're starting off with making it extremely easy to use the software that you guys and everybody else in the space has made. But again, it's not limited to blockchain software. It's not a kind of blockchain product. But we are trying to make blockchain-based stacks, ones that are actually being used to solve real problems, especially when it comes to businesses. And Renee was talking about, you know, how this is basically not really used in any meaningful way between public and the business fears. Yeah. So we want to help people build WebRnext applications, basically. And in doing that, we want to be able to dog food those same architectural choices that I was just talking about. And so how can we create a business model that doesn't require us to ask for people's login information every step of the way? How can we make sure that things are faster because they run locally than if they were run via a centralized SaaS service? How can we make people not make trade-offs and want to use this kind of a tool set, which right now, yes, is very developer-centric, but longer term is hopefully for people in general? Yeah. This project is all local and there's no logins. Everything you see, even though it looks like kind of a cloud launcher thing, it's actually just fully local. We're just going to show this quickly because it'll be fun. Did we reach our shilling point? We did. Oh, this is where we're shilling. This is the shilling point portion of the project. Hashtag. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So hopefully this is a useful tool. So Solidity Search. So if you have ever attempted to write smart contracts in Solidity, you may have needed to stop and go Google a specific function to find out what the inputs are so that you could go back and make everything work properly, right? And that takes a couple seconds. You have to go to Google, type things in, find the right thing, click through, figure out if it's right. Right. Yeah. And it turns out a big problem when you're developing software and smart contracts is you keep kind of forgetting what the definitions are. When you have types and named arguments, there's a lot of information communicated just in the types of things. But probably most people in here that are doing smart contracts, if they forget today, they will Google that and then plus Solidity. And maybe it will be the first result. So we thought we'd build a tool that led you search ABIs in which all this information is already encoded and allow you to add kind of your own information to this without it being needed to be sent to any server anywhere or to Clover or anything like this. So again, this is all running locally. We provided a few examples like Open Zeppelin, but you can add your own if you want. The EIPs, too. The EIPs are also searchable in here. So a few examples are... Which ones do you want to see? Try Burn. Oh, I was showing us already. So this is an example of looking for every function that is called Burn. So I can see kind of which contracts in the space that Burn funds. That's the kind of one kind of search. The other probably more common search when you're developing stuff is to type for example, ERC20. I remember some of the methods on this, but I don't remember exactly in which way the arguments go. You can just see the whole interface for the contract. And I'll talk about the extensibility. Yeah, so the second part here shows that you can actually make one Solidity file, import all the libraries that you want to search in this way and compile it with the Solidity compiler and paste it in here. Again, it does not leave your machine. It just is parsed by the page and added to the index. You can also remove the things that we have by default and use totally only your own Solidity APIs. Pretty fun. And so that's at clover.app now. And so it's... Yeah, this is live now. So if you want to check it out, it's clover.app. So that's fun. Okay. So now let's talk about some... What decentralization, quote unquote, means throughout the rest of the development process and lifecycle here. So I found this white paper. I just really enjoyed this one for GoChain. I don't know if you're familiar with this, but it's 10x more decentralized. And it's 100x faster and 1,000x greener. That means it's really good. This sounds amazing. And I was like, how is it so much more decentralized? So then on their FAQ, it's like, how can I become an authoritative node in this amazing decentralized network applied here to be considered? Awesome. Great stuff. So we're not... There's so many discussions about that. That's not what I'm talking about here. You might have heard, I guess, a couple months ago at this point, when Jackson Palmer and Emman Goon decided to put together this arewedecentralizedyet.com site and look at these various metrics by which you could judge some of these different cryptocurrency projects and figure out which ones are the most decentralized. But the one that really caught me, I don't want to talk about any of that point. You can yell about it on Twitter later. But what caught me was the number of clients that are available for these is not higher than three for any. And for most projects is one or two. And now we hear a lot of the time anybody can make a client. If you don't like it, just go build your own. And there's many Bitcoin clients, and there are actually several Ethereum clients as well. But if you look at the statistics of how they're deployed, over 95% of nodes are running the same Bitcoin Core implementation. And in Ethereum, it's split between the geth and parity versions to over 80% of the network. So it was just kind of an interesting trigger for us to say, can we look at some of the code itself and how this is happening in the build process? Because we keep saying, decentralize the development process as though there's this unlimited universal pool of qualified open source developers who are just waiting to be asked to contribute something. And this base tends to take a lot more pride in being decentralized in different metrics and keeps kind of holding it over each other when they fail to meet some of those metrics. Yeah, we poke at each other, right? So, you might have seen yesterday that the Zcash Foundation, which is not the Zcash company, as Zuko would like to remind you, and of which I am a board member on the foundation, so full disclosure. Today is the single most important step for robust and capture-resistant evolution of Zcash in the long run. I thought it was interesting the way that he didn't say, we want to decentralize Zcash. He was very specific in saying that we want to make this a capture-resistant evolution, wherein it's not just about having two clients, a law, a theory, or a guess in parody, but it is about having multiple clients which are also governed by separate organizations. And that's cool. So, across guess, if you look at the contributions, and let me, well, I won't click back at this point, but if you go to clover.app as well, there's another app that's down there that is called CodeStats, and you can look at all of the underlying data for these and kind of sort stuff, and you can click contributors and see the actual libraries that they've contributed to. So, some people might actually work more on importing existing projects or databases into other blockchains as opposed to, say, working on underlying cryptographic primitives, which is fine, we need all things. Some people do test cases, whatever, but there's this whole ego attached to what core devs mean. And it's kind of interesting to dig into where the code change and the code progression comes from. No, a core dev is somebody who changed to readme in Bitcoin Core a little bit. Ouch, burn. Okay. So, there's geth for you, but I noticed there's one, two, three, four real things that kind of names that hang out there. There's parity, okay, maybe a smidge and more, but really, I mean over half the code for sure is like three people. What about Bitcoin? Yeah, you notice there's an interesting trend here. Most of these pies or circles, donuts look basically the same. They have one major contributor, one pretty big one, and then a couple of semi-active ones, and then a bunch of people who have contributed once or changed a few things here and there. And I leave it as an exercise to the user to aggregate or to map these versus Twitter followers, but it is not a direct relationship. There's an inverse relationship. And Zcash. Similar. Now, what I did for Zcash also is I dipped out the portion of the Bitcoin code base that they had used so you can see the actual Zcash portion there, which those are employees of the Zcash company. Does it matter? I don't know, but we need to know who's doing these things. So across all of those, and also just to note when I did Bitcoin, I threw lightning in there as well, so it kind of appears as an additional client, which kind of boosts them a little bit. So I think that across Bitcoin and Ethereum, Zcash, even Cardano, you're seeing like seven different developer, there's seven developers that would account for more than 60% of the code. So if you start from the top of who has the largest percent of change over time, which is a touching number, but has to do with insertions and deletions and stuff, not just overall random commits, that it only takes at maximum seven people to have hit 60% of the code. So. And those are the best ones in the blockchain space. Yeah. Now what about other open source projects that have nothing to do with decentralizing anything? So it's a little bit ironic that Kubernetes and React, some of the most popular and some of the most centralized, or centralized origin in all of the world and all of open source, one coming from Google, obviously, and one coming from Facebook, are far more decentralized in terms of who contributes to the projects and kind of where your risk points are if somebody dies, does the project die, Kubernetes certainly not. React has a few major contributors, but they don't really, any of them have decided anything. So it's just, it kind of stood out that Kubernetes has absolutely nothing to do with decentralization. Vendor log and prevention, sure, but they're much better at it. There's no Kubernetes coin, why is that? They're already decentralized. Yeah. Okay. So remember, so it's not just about who writes the code, though. And at risk of doing analysis of code contributions is an implicit argument that only code contribution matters, and that is not the case. So I wanted to think more about how we get to that point where code is created, but after that how it kind of leaves that mothership and is distributed around the world and becomes kind of installations that we all use. So the process for this could be initially we're thinking about things, we're coming up with ideas, then there's really design processes, you're writing things, and then the other thing we just talked about is really just the build step, then it's who has merge master rights, who's doing the actual commits, then you have how you get the code out into the world and distribute it in a push sense, so that would also include marketing, how you let people know that that product is there for them, and then how people come to you and how they access it. Is it accessible only via web browser? Do you have to have a specific application? And then how is it deployed? Is it a SaaS thing that you don't control? Is it a local thing? Is it in the cloud or not? How is it running? And then how is that reporting happening and then going back home? So how do we handle bugs, monitoring usage patterns, figuring out what we should build next? That's really, it's a long process, and it's not just the DevOps process, it's a full product life cycle, and so if we talk about the brainstorming process, and the obvious question is how many people contributed ideas to this project. But maybe some of the less obvious questions that we should be asking as we go through this are things like how are new ideas solicited and from whom? And how are we processing and capturing them? Who feels qualified to be able to share those new ideas? What tools are we using to capture them? Where are they available? Where do they run? How dependent are we on GitHub? What kind of reception do disruptive ideas receive from the community when they're proposed? Whose opinion is able to bless or kill an idea? I mean, I know it's a meritocracy and the good ideas always win. And in which languages are the ideas shared, right? And then moving up to the design process, like how accessible are the kinds of specs that you're creating to other audiences? Are they presented in languages or are they distributed to other audiences? Are they presented in language that they'll understand? How is feedback collected? Who's deciding if we're ready to move on to this? And how similar in perspective are the various contributors to the actual design? Do they all use the same mathy languages? Do they all want to write something in latex that isn't necessarily accessible to some other people? How can we kind of, this is where it turns into sounding like diversity and inclusion? But it's not really, it's about finding how to create a more robust design process that doesn't become centralized around any specific kind of groupthink. Then the build process we already talked about with all of those code stats, but it's easy to say how many people contributed to the code base, but more important is probably how many people made those significant outsize contributions. How specialized are some of the skill sets that you need in order to make a significant contribution? And all projects are not created equal there. How many different working implementations, not just hobby projects, are there? How many of those individuals do you want to aggregate up to the same corporate entity? How welcoming are we to newbies? And how well documented is the code? We could go on and on and on, but we just need to do a better job of thinking through what these things are. And then I kind of bundled all these ones at the top here. But you know, where is it hosted? How is it phoning home? All of the privacy issues that you have. Where are the bottlenecks in this process? And this is where I think it's a lot easier for us to call out third-party entities and say, oh, well you own that. You push that application out to us, and because of that it's centralized. But really, especially if you look at most of the DApps, there's really only one way, one or two ways to access them, and not a lot of people are spending their free time, even if APIs are published, to go out and build competing implementations. So to kind of wrap up here, how might these soft dependencies impact the Ethereum community and also other cryptocurrency and decentralized projects at large? Well, every single one of the points that you just mentioned is a point of centralization in a way, and in a way a lack of diversity is also itself a point of centralization because you do not get that heterogeneosity. And so our takeaway for you is try to evaluate the projects that you're currently using in the space and the project that you're developing, and see where these fault lines are because if you're really trying to truly become decentralized, we can only wait for so long before somebody kind of calls us out on it actually not being decentralized. And ultimately, what are we trying to build? Is it about maxing out those decentralized stats and competing stats, and if we do that do we not run the risk of ending up with either a year of the Linux desktop problem for these applications, or possibly that it stays something like TOR where it's great for people in the bubble but not widely acceptable? We need to think kind of outside that bubble there is, which is to build these kind of applications that allow us to challenge existing power structures and foster human consent. So, thank you. It's cool to see how you lay out the development process and suggest how we can decentralize that. Do you guys at Clover adopt any kind of practice in that development process to make your code development process more decentralized? Yeah. I think there's a danger in kind of adopting a methodology versus keeping these things in mind and evaluating them when new information meets you, so we do think about these things all the time but it's not kind of a rigid process to go through, because once you have kind of a rigid process it gets a lot easier to lose information and care about the wrong things. And I really don't think that it matters that a single company or even a small group of individuals are putting tools out there if those tools are allowing the people that use them to achieve the ends that they're looking for. We just need to be aware that if those people get hit by a bus or that company implodes or they just suddenly decide that Do No Evil was a bad slogan and then we're stuck with it, those are things that the community needs to inoculate itself for. And hopefully, theoretically, market forces are supposed to take care of that but it would be probably a better idea to just sort of get a little bit of the support up front. And it's not really easy to say how we live up in the tools that we showed, for example to kind of being decentralized. Of course, it's hosted centrally but you could take those JavaScript files and HTML file, you could put it somewhere else. So is that decentralized? It's open. Awesome. I think that's our time unfortunately. Thank you, Amber and Patrick. Thanks. Thank you.