I wanted to ask you about the energy consumption in mining. Yes. And what's the solution for that? Well, the energy consumption in mining I think is misrepresented very often in two ways. One is that mining itself is one of the few industries that is completely geographically independent, meaning that it doesn't matter where you are if you are mining. As long as you have inexpensive electricity. So what that allows you to do is choose the location of your mining system based entirely on the local cost of electricity, which means that mining is doing market arbitrage for the cheapest sources of electricity. Now, in many cases, the reason and source of electricity is cheap is because it does not match the demand at that location. In countries where there aren't broadly deployed, efficient distribution networks for electricity, one of the challenges with rapidly deploying and developing energy is that you build a power plant not for the demand that it has today, but you build it for the demand that you're going to have over the next 15 years. Because you have to make that investment now and grow into it. Because you can't simply move energy across a massive country when you don't have a distribution network. I'm speaking of China, if you didn't figure it out, but that's one of the fundamental problems they have. And this problem is replicated across not just China, but many developing nations, as well as many developed nations. The places where electricity is needed, and the times when electricity is needed are almost always not the places and times where electricity is available. So what happens when you build a 50 megawatt plant in a place where they only have 15 megawatts of demand? Well, in some cases, if it's alternative energy, like wind, solar, or hydro, you can't turn it off or turn it down. So you've built it, and it will produce, and then want. Then you're basically wasting energy. Now, what if, in that environment, you could find a way to turn that energy into an alternative store value, and then instead of paying off for the electricity plant in five years, you pay off in one here. By using electricity that would be otherwise wasted. Now, Bitcoin is an environmental subsidy to alternative energy all around the world, because it's causing these projects to be amortized over a year instead of five. Oh, you're telling me we were running a green coin all this time, and I didn't even notice. So one problem is that you've got to understand it from the perspective of balancing supply and demand on a global scale without distribution networks. And that's driving the decentralization of Bitcoin is driving the decentralization of energy production, which is one of the most important trends in human history. Now, one of the other things you've got to keep in mind is that Bitcoin is easy to criticize for its energy consumption because it's obvious. There are a lot more much wasteful things that are far less obvious. For every time you pull out that little plastic card and you use it to do a transaction, you're not aware of the 100,000 square foot data center that is churning 100,000 servers to do fraud detection or clearing or whatever. You're not aware of the tower offices that are lit 24 hours a day, and the trading floor is in the bank vaults, and the armored cars and the diesel trucks and the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. All of those costs are mostly hidden and they're enormous. Are you telling me that perhaps Bitcoin ends up being the most efficient way to do transactions on a global scale? You got to remember that the level of security we have for Bitcoin today is a level of security that can handle global attacks by colluding nation states. That's the level of security that is needed for the system to remain censorship resistant. But if the system was 10 times bigger with 10 times more users, it doesn't need 10 times more mining. It already has globally secure mining. What we have is enough. There's a profit motive that drives it, but it's a mistake to think that simply if we go global, that cost will also multiply. Quite the opposite, in fact, over time, the reward from mining decreases. And as a result, it's more likely we'll see that gradually taper off in plateau. So this is a long game. The implications and complexity of how cost is allocated and how energy is consumed is huge. I don't think we can afford two proof of work systems on this planet, but I think we might only need one. Maybe everything else could be proof of stake and anchor into the only proof of work system we have. We need one planetary scale proof of work system to offer us true energy dependence in mutability. But maybe we can only afford one. Turns out that might be Bitcoin's killer app.