And I definitely personally hope centralized exchanges burn and hell as much as possible. The thing with developers is, right, that we're fairly fungible people. You know, one developer goes down, someone else can keep on developing. If someone puts a gun to my head and tells me to write a hard-for-art patch, I will definitely write a hard-for-art patch. I will write the GitHub issue. I will write up the code. I will publish it. I will do everything they say. If I am a public do this and I publish a hard-for-art patch to delete a bunch of accounts, how many people will be willing to download and install the update and switch to that chain? I see relatively few raised panels. This is called decentralization. Do you personally own any cryptocadies? I think like two people gave me a couple of cryptocadies that I haven't really looked at them since. They're around. I mean, tokenizing real-world assets, whether they're securities or gold or bonds or like fiat or like, I don't know, like pixels of some Banksy photo or whatever, I think. It's like all interesting. It doesn't seem psychologically that easy for people to make the leap from paying $40 million for a monoleesa painting to paying $40 million for a digital private-seat thing in a jig that claims that it has some arbitrary attachment to a monoleesa painting. And that's like, okay, fine, I understand that. I don't really understand the art world in general anyway, when you can just like photo, like, a painting and then like, make a copy that looks almost identical. I don't know. Yeah. Even if centralizing changes end up having a lot of volume, like the better decentralized exchanges are at the baseline, kind of the more happy I am because that way we can really like take away this stupid, king-making power that these centralizing changes have. We're like, where they have this ability to just decide which tokens become big by just deciding to less them and then charging these per-easy 10 to $15 million listing fees. And like, the more we can get away from that world and into something which actually, you know, satisfies the watching values of openness and transparency, the better. I definitely am less optimistic about private and get sort of in blockchains than I was two or three years ago. Basically because like, there's a bubble and there are a lot of promises and like, oh my God, IBM makes $200 million savings by putting something on a blockchain and I have no idea what they actually did. They probably just like digitized something that was paper before and like, great. Which other blockchains interest you by which we could measure up the, which are the blockchains do you have to have private keys for experimental reasons? Well, a lot of this is kind of historical reasons but Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Uranium is quite that, Bitcoin carbon dioxide. No, let's see, I got some doge, I think I got some E-cash in all sorts of Ethereum based tokens.