We're back for Episode 41! Join your host, Pierre Rochard to unlock the mysteries of Bitcoin custody and regulation with us on the latest Block Time podcast episode. Learn about the stark contrast between traditional banking responsibilities and the decentralized nature of Bitcoin, where you're the captain of your own holdings. And if you're curious about the nitty-gritty of transaction verification and the ethic dilemmas node operators may face, we've got that covered too. Listen now!
Follow Blocktime on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BlocktimebyRiot
Follow Blocktime on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@RiotPlatforms/podcasts
We're back for Episode 41! Join your host, Pierre Rochard to unlock the mysteries of Bitcoin custody and regulation with us on the latest Block Time podcast episode. Learn about the stark contrast between traditional banking responsibilities and the decentralized nature of Bitcoin, where you're the captain of your own holdings. And if you're curious about the nitty-gritty of transaction verification and the ethic dilemmas node operators may face, we've got that covered too. Listen now!
Follow Blocktime on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BlocktimebyRiot
Follow Blocktime on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@RiotPlatforms/podcasts
Welcome to the Block Time podcast produced by Riot Platforms, where we discuss all things Bitcoin, bitcoin mining and energy grid related. Today, we're going to focus on an issue that has been in the news, which is really around self-custody and the regulatory environment here in the United States on how you can control your own money. So, by way of background, the whole premise of Bitcoin is that you can control your own money, and historically, the regulatory regime in the United States has actually been pretty accommodating towards that end. Fincen issued guidance in early 2014 explaining that, as long as you're not controlling other people's money, you're not a money-transmitting business, not a money transmitting business. So what that means in practice is that if you are developing software, for example, to have a wallet, a Bitcoin wallet or a Bitcoin node, or if you're mining Bitcoin, that you are not a money services, a money transmission business. That is regulated by the Bank Secrecy Act, and it's not just the FinCEN guidance in 2014 that established that, it's the Bank Secrecy Act itself, which dates back to the 1970s, that made that pretty clear, because otherwise, if you extend the definition of money transmission too broadly, then you end up including the US Postal Service, right, if somebody mails cash to their friend on the other side of the world. Is it the US Postal Service responsibility to open every letter, see if there's cash in there and then do what they need to do? From a regulatory perspective, that would be too broad. And then, in the online banking world, imagine if your internet service provider had to make sure that your connection to your bank's web server, that the information that you were transmitting about your money, was regulatorily compliant. So that would be too broad. So the regulations and the law limit it to just the bank. And why is it just the bank? Or what is the litmus test it's really about?
Speaker 1:If the bank can control your money, then they have a certain set of extra responsibilities. Namely, they have to know their customer, meaning that they have to get your identity. That, even though it's pretty narrow, that actually causes lots of problems itself Identity theft happening all the time nowadays, hackers stealing your data. But that aside, the other responsibility they have is anti-money laundering. So if they see that you deposit $15,000, they are going to note that and report it as something that was a large transaction. Now, when they set the limit, I think they set the limit to $10,000 in 1970. Back then, $10,000 was a lot of money. Now, due to inflation, it's probably capturing a lot more data than it used to, and they keep trying to lower the limits as well. So now you've got information reporting for amounts as low as $700. Information reporting for amounts as low as $700.
Speaker 1:So the idea being that if you control when you deposit your money at the bank, they control that money from that point on and all you have is an IOU that the bank owes you money Still, technically. Well, technically, you know. Well, technically, it's not your money anymore, it's the banks, and that they owe it to you. So in the world of Bitcoin, the best way to use Bitcoin is to actually hold your own keys. So there's a famous saying in the Bitcoin community not your keys, not your Bitcoin. Meaning that if you are able to control your own money, then you're not at the mercy of a trusted third party. Trusted third parties have a very long history of abusing the trust that we put in them. So you know, depositing your money at the bank, they take that and then they go lend it out to somebody else, so the money is not even there anymore. So, on top of that, they can just close your account or they can say hey, we don't work on weekends, so we're not going to process your money In Bitcoin.
Speaker 1:Being able to control your own money is really threefold, so I think most important is controlling the private key. The private key is what's going to allow you to provide a digital signature proving that somebody sent money to your address and unlocking that money so that then you can turn around and send it, spend it yourself. So the private key is really about being able to receive and send receive, hold and send Bitcoin, receive, hold and send Bitcoin. The other part of controlling your own money is being able to verify that it is actually being received, held and sent, and the way to verify that independently is by running your own Bitcoin node. You can think of this as being your own bank, right, in that you are performing your own record keeping of how much money you have, and you're doing this without having to trust anyone else. It goes further, though, because the note software is actually what operationalizes the rules of the Bitcoin protocol. So it's really going from being your own bank to being your own central bank or your own regulator, and that you are the one who gets to choose what rules that you're going to follow for your own money.
Speaker 1:Now, the caveat is that you have to follow the same rules as the person who is sending money to you and this person that you're sending money to, so there has to be some compatibility with other nodes in order for you to be on the Bitcoin network, on the Bitcoin protocol. So it's kind of a paradox of you are self-sovereign, you get to control your own money, but because you can't control other people's nodes, you're going to have to find a way to communicate with them using a common language, and that is ultimately going to create a consensus, a consensus of rules about what Bitcoin is, rules about what Bitcoin is. So the third piece is the Bitcoin mining part, which is really about ordering the transactions so that the order of transactions is not spending the same Bitcoin twice, and so if somebody tries to spend the same Bitcoin, then their transaction is invalid and it won't be included in the ledger. And so, with those three categories, we can see that if you're running your own Bitcoin node, something that happens is that you're going to, in order to verify the whole ledger and to make sure that there's no inflation, you have to download other people's transactions. So when you're running a Bitcoin node. It's analogous to running a web browser where you download the whole internet. That seems unusual to us because that would be way too much data and you don't need it all. But in Bitcoin you do need it because otherwise you don't know if somebody is trying to create more Bitcoin out of thin air. You need to have a global view of the ledger in its totality to be able to say, ok, there's only 19 million Bitcoin today out of a total possible 21 million in the future. And that is what is enabling Bitcoin to be a sound money, to have scarcity and, ultimately, to have value that it's not constantly getting diluted.
Speaker 1:The problem or we can view it as a problem or the challenge or the downside of downloading everyone's transactions is that one it's a lot of data. Still, the Bitcoin ledger is now north of 500 gigabytes of data that you have to download, which, if you have a fiber optic internet connection and you have a top of the line computer, it takes you hours to be able to sync a node and download all of that data, verify it. But if you have anything less than that, it can quickly take days, weeks, months. But if you have anything less than that, it can quickly take days, weeks, months, and if you're on dial-up internet, you would just never be able to download all of that data because you'd never catch up. There's approximately one to two megabytes of data that's added every 10 minutes on average, and so your internet connection has to be able to keep up with that.
Speaker 1:The other challenge is that when you're downloading and verifying other people's transactions, those transactions might have been involved in illegal activity, right, so that person might have committed crimes and their transaction is a part of that crime. And so there's an interesting legal question of should we allow people to download and verify a transaction that has been involved in criminal activity? I think that the the common sense view of it is that witnessing a crime is not a crime it's. It's unfortunately something that happens, that you know, by living in a society where crime happens, that you're unfortunately going to have to witness some crime happen, whether it's seeing somebody speeding on the highway. Seeing somebody speeding on the highway, it doesn't mean that you are endorsing that criminal activity or that you're involved in it in a meaningful way, but you are involved in it as a witness to the criminal activity, and the important thing to note here is that law enforcement can run a Bitcoin note as well. So it's not even the case that by being a witness to the crime that you should have some affirmative responsibility to report the crime to law enforcement. That would certainly be the case if you're the only witness and that there's no other way for that information to get out there. So you know, perhaps there should be an obligation to report crime if you're the only person who saw it happen. But if law enforcement can opt in to seeing it happen, if they want to, then really they should run a Bitcoin node and, you know, witness these crimes and then use it for their investigation and to follow up on prosecution. So that's on the node side.
Speaker 1:Then on the Bitcoin mining side, the mining pools get to decide which transactions to include in a block. Now, typically, they'll decide based on which transactions are paying the highest fee rate. Now, typically, they'll decide based on which transactions are paying the highest fee rate. The reason why they do this is because if they are not profit maximizing meaning that if they're not including the highest fee rate transaction, some other mining pool will Because being a mining pool is permissionless. Anybody can start a mining pool, connect to the Bitcoin network and start proposing blocks. So if you start trying to censor transactions or to filter transactions out, well, some other mining pool is going to come along and pick up those transactions and earn the transaction fee from that that. Now, because ultimately the mining pool does not get to decide what gets into the blockchain, because other mining pools are involved as well. It being a decentralized system, that essentially means that they don't decide who's going to transmit the money or not. And, furthermore, it really is the case that a transaction's life cycle does not start in the mining process.
Speaker 1:The transaction's life cycle starts in the wallet software. The wallet software is what is going to craft the transaction, meaning that they're going to look at okay, here's the Bitcoin we've received in these unspent outputs. Here's the digital signatures we're going to use to unlock those Bitcoin, and then here's the new outputs that we're going to create and those are going to go to the destination, the addresses. Typically, one address is going to your friend that you're paying, and then the other address is going back to your wallet and has changed, and then your wallet software takes that transaction, sends it out to nodes. Nodes verify the transaction, include it in a backlog of transactions that is called the mempool and then from there they're going to share it with other nodes. Eventually it gets to a node that is connected to a mining pool. The mining pool will take those transactions, put it in a block and then send the block header out to the hashers, the people who own the mining computers, and then the mining computers are going to hash that block header.
Speaker 1:So it's not even the case that Bitcoin miners verify transactions. They don't. What verifies transactions is upstream of that. It's the Node software. So the Node software cannot modify a transaction. If it receives a transaction, that transaction is already immutable because it has been signed by the wallet. It's really the wallet software that creates the transaction by the wallet. It's really the wallet software that creates the transaction.
Speaker 1:The other part of it, too, is that all of this software is open source, so you can actually write your own wallet software. If you're a software developer or if you want to become one, there's lots of resources out there on how to write your own wallet software. There's lots of resources out there on how to write your own wallet software. So even the developers of the wallet software they don't get to decide how people are going to use their software Much how somebody who manufactures a car is not going to decide how you're going to use your car. Now maybe that's changing with autonomous vehicles and whatnot, but that's historically been the case that people can do bad things with cars, but the car manufacturer is not liable for them doing that and not responsible for it, because it was really outside of the scope of what they can control, meaning that in every case, the wallet software developer, the node software developer and the node operators and the miners they don't control your Bitcoin. It really is you who controls your own Bitcoin. Is you who controls your own Bitcoin?
Speaker 1:So tying it back to the regulatory environment. If the law says, in order to be a money transmission business, you have to be controlling somebody else's money, then none of these activities fall under the purview of that regulatory environment. Contrast that with an exchange. So, for example, if you buy your Bitcoin on Coinbase or on Kraken or any other exchange or a brokerage like River or like Swan, they do control your money until you withdraw it, but during that period of time when you deposit the dollars and then convert it into Bitcoin, they're controlling your money and so they actually do fall within that regulatory environment and they have to register as money transmission businesses and they do register as that and they do have responsibilities for KYC AML from that.
Speaker 1:So already we can see that in today's ecosystem there are participants who are money services businesses who are engaged in money transmission, and then there are other participants who are not. Then there are other participants who are not and that was pretty clear from 2014 until basically this month when the Southern District of New York a federal prosecutor from the Department of Justice there decided to argue in his case that money transmission does not require control, that all it requires is transmission. It doesn't require the technical term for control that is used in the law and in the regulations is acceptance. That is that if you accept money from someone else, that now you're controlling that money. They're arguing in New York that actually the acceptance part is optional and that it's really about the transmission part of. Are you somehow in any way facilitating the transaction by moving the money from point A to point B, even if you don't control it, which is now creating a cloud of uncertainty in the regulatory environment.
Speaker 1:The hope is that the judge will look at this and strike it down and say hey, you know, that's. That's not a valid argument, but really what's unprecedented here is to have a federal prosecutor completely change the law you know at their whim of, and it would be like saying that, hey, they're going to argue in court that Amazon Web Services or an internet service provider is a money transmitter, because they are transmitting money when you send a Bitcoin transaction. So it's a very expansive definition that they're using or arguing for, and I think that, from the perspective of the community and even policymakers, this fits a pattern that we've seen with the current administration of trying to find every possible angle to attack the industry and to try to make it, to undermine it and to favor the incumbent financial industry, because they don't like the decentralization aspect of it. And it really is the decentralization of the network and of, how you know, of people being able to control their own money on an individual basis that is causing them to have anxiety about the future. If you no longer can control other people's money, you can no longer extract value from them, and we've seen this happen over and over, whether it's by creating lots of dollars out of thin air or by seizing people's money, you know, without due process. So you know you've got civil asset forfeiture laws out there that completely bypass the judiciary process and take people's money and then hold them. You know, guilty until proven innocent. Guilty until proven innocent.
Speaker 1:So all of these abuses of power are now being called into question by a decentralized network like Bitcoin and this current administration I'll go further and say it's not really the current administration. It's a particular faction within the administration that wants to really protect the banking industry from this competition of an alternative decentralized system that is trying to find any way possible to crack down on people controlling their own money, and they don't want people to have this freedom. So it is troubling. Now, the way that they're packaging this is not as a full on attack on freedom. Rather, what they're trying to do is portray this as OK. This system is benefiting criminals, and thus you know it is criminal is benefiting criminals and thus you know it is criminal. And that's just not in line with how any other industry you know gets regulated, because obviously lots of different industries inadvertently, by virtue of trying to help good people, do help criminals, right. So you've got criminals using the roads. You've got criminals using the roads. You've got criminals using the internet, but we don't ban roads and we don't ban the internet just because some small minority of use cases are antisocial.
Speaker 1:So the other part of, too, is the privacy angle From a regulatory perspective. Historically, privacy has not been a concern, a crime, that the law enforcement would take their suspicions that are based on probable cause to a judge to get a warrant, and then they would take that warrant and they would search your bank account. That's what the Constitution says they should do. Unfortunately, that has fallen apart over the past 50 years, where they don't need to get an OAR to go search your bank account. They claim that you don't have an expectation of privacy if you use a bank because the bank has your data.
Speaker 1:So the Supreme Court recently has been pushing back on this in a different context, in the context of cell phone records, in a different context, in the context of cell phone records. So they've used this approach of hey, you don't have an expectation of privacy with regards to your cell phone provider and thus law enforcement can track your every move. Right, because we carry our cell phones around all day. The cell phone company knows exactly where your cell phone is and thus where you are at all times, so they can triangulate using the cell phone company knows exactly where your cell phone is and thus where you are at all times, so they can triangulate using the cell phone towers. And recently the Supreme Court took a look at this and they expressed quite a lot of skepticism that you know. We have to adapt to the modern times of hey.
Speaker 1:Now maybe people should have an expectation of privacy, because the founding fathers would never have thought that the government can track your every move without a warrant. That's just somewhat unprecedented. And being able to see who did you call, who did you text, what did you tell them, who did you call, who did you text, what did you tell them? And historically you know that would have been letters in the mail where they would have to get a warrant to open the letter. And now we're in a position where privacy rights have been severely eroded due to this privacy expectation argument. So perhaps it's the case that as these cases move their way through the legal system, that they'll be struck down, that this expectation of privacy argument will, or lack of expectation of privacy will go away and that going forward the government will have to get a warrant to search your bank account.
Speaker 1:But it's not a sure thing. So hopefully there's also legislative movement in that direction as well. But you know, for the sake of Bitcoin, what's going to happen is that, in all likelihood, they're going to lose on this argument that a money transmission business doesn't have to control the funds, because it doesn't make sense. The main reason it doesn't make sense is that the policy reason why you need to have control of the funds is that if somebody is doing something bad, then you would have the ability to freeze the funds. If you don't have the ability to freeze the funds, then it doesn't really matter. If somebody is doing something bad, they're going to do that bad thing. So why say that, oh, you should be a money transmission business and also not be able to freeze the funds? That doesn't make any sense. So that's probably going to fall apart. But we might not even have to wait for that to fall apart. Clear in the law that Bitcoin nodes, wallets and miners are not money services businesses, even though it's already implied based on the existing legislation. They're going to formalize that. So hopefully that will get voted on in the House over the coming weeks and then hopefully it'll go up to the Senate, get passed, get signed into law. But in the meantime, there certainly is a lot of disappointment that the current administration is being so hostile towards the industry that they would go so far as to try to reinterpret laws that are decades old in order to fit into their worldview. So that's really what's going on with regards to money transmission and money services businesses. Hopefully that'll get cleared up Now you know.
Speaker 1:On a different note, there's also another attack on the industry, which came from the SEC Securities and Exchange Commission. They came out with an accounting bulletin SOB 121, that said that in order for banks to custody Bitcoin that is, to hold Bitcoin on behalf of their clients that they would have to hold reserves against those Bitcoin. So essentially that if a bank is going to hold a million dollars worth of Bitcoin for you, not only do they have to hold a million dollars worth of Bitcoin, they also have to hold treasuries government debt worth a million dollars in order to backstop those Bitcoin, which really doesn't make any sense because the Bitcoin are already there. So your claim on the bank it's already 100% reserve. So what they were trying to do is have 200% reserve for a number of reasons. One they could create more demand for treasuries, right? So now people need to buy more government debt in order to hold Bitcoin, which is very convenient for the government but very inconvenient for anyone involved. And two, they just don't want banks to hold Bitcoin, so they're trying to penalize banks for custodying Bitcoin on behalf of their clients.
Speaker 1:The House voted in a bipartisan way, of both Democrats and Republicans last week to say, hey, this is not a useful interpretation or it's not a useful accounting bulletin, and so they're trying to overturn the accounting bulletin. Now it's going to go from the House to the Senate, so hopefully the Senate will also have a bipartisan majority. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has signaled that they would veto this overturning of Saab 121, which seems very aggressive because it's you know, it seems aggressive, but it is in line with the administration's attack on the industry. Hopefully they don't veto it and they have a change of heart when they see how many Democrat senators decide to vote for a common sense bill. That really, you know, fixes this SEC overreach. But we'll see what happens. Nothing is done until the votes are cast in the Senate and then if the White House were to veto it, then it would go back to the House and Senate and they would have to get a super majority, so two thirds of the House and Senate would have to vote on it to overturn the president's veto. That seems like the votes are not there to get a two thirds majority, so that would be unfortunate.
Speaker 1:It's interesting, though, that this has been bipartisan and it really goes down to an issue of voters. That is in the United States. Thankfully, we still live in a democracy where the politicians have to be accountable to voters, and we have an election coming up, and when you have an election coming up, politicians have to be careful about what they're voting for or against, because their opponents will use those votes against them if they're unpopular. And and the electoral reality here is that about 20% of Americans are somehow involved in crypto. Right Broadly speaking, they own some kind of cryptocurrency, whether it's Bitcoin or anything else. And so if you and that 20% breaks down pretty much 50-50 along Republicans, democrats, independents what have you? It's reflective of the voting base.
Speaker 1:It's not like it's tilted in one direction or the other, and so if you decide to be, as Elizabeth Warren put it, to create an anti-crypto army, you're antagonizing 20% of the voters and you're not really picking up any votes on the other side, because the other side of people who are anti-crypto is less than 1%. It's a handful of people, and so you're not really picking up any votes. You're alienating 20% of the public, and those who are paying attention to the polling data see this reality and then vote accordingly. Those who are ignoring the polling data or ignorant of it and not paying attention and are trying to curry favor with anti-crypto army, I think that they're going to have electoral consequences. Already, in Massachusetts, we see that there's a challenger to Elizabeth Horne, so that could end up being an upset race. We'll see how that happens. End up being an upset race. We'll see how that happens. And then there's other races as well that could be decided by crypto voters.
Speaker 1:It will be about how do we activate those voters and make sure that they understand what the stakes are here, because it's not just that the anti-crypto army in DC has a policy view and that they're advancing it. They're advancing it in a way that is illegal and so that they're they're violating the was illegal and was overturned in court. And now we see it with how they're trying to attack open source developers in federal court by twisting the law and essentially breaking it as well. Right, by putting out frivolous arguments, legal arguments, to try to attack and harass open source developers. So they're really they're not, and the SEC as well is not a good faith regulator, right? They're not looking at, okay, well, you know, what are we allowed to do. Rather, they're looking at what can we try to get away with and not end up in jail. So they're breaking the law right up to the point where there would be criminal liability on their part.
Speaker 1:So it's really important for voters to be aware of this and to dig into researching these issues and asking pointed questions to their representatives of hey, what are you doing to stop this out of control? Weaponization of government against the public, because ultimately, the government should be here to serve the public. They shouldn't be here to serve the government, and here we have a clear case of them trying to figure out how to serve the government rather than what's in the best interest of the public. Visit El Salvador. El Salvador is a developing nation in Latin America south of Mexico. Got to visit a volcano there.
Speaker 1:I did a five-hour lecture on Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining at a university there where there was university students as well as government officials, and it was really refreshing, because El Salvador is an example where the government is really focused on serving the people, and you could see that in every conversation I had with, you know, normal day-to-day El Salvadorians. They were really happy about their government and how things have really turned around there. It went from being a country that was unfortunately dominated by criminal gang activity and what the government did was put all those criminal gangs in prison where they can no longer control the civilian population, and it went from being too dangerous to go outside during the day it was too dangerous to go outside, and so people would just find ways to, you know, occupy their time inside. And even there were kind of leftover artifacts of that era. When you're driving around in San Salvador, it's just, it was eye-opening how many homes had barbed wire around them right to keep out the criminals. You know, so that being left over from that era of people being, you know, living in constant fear. And now the status quo is that I went downtown in El Salvador at 10 pm and you know there were families with kids strolling around and enjoying, you know, being outside for the first time in many years, because now they have security and they can actually, you know, actually not fear for their lives every time they go outside. So that filled me with tremendous hope.
Speaker 1:And then, on top of that, the government has a very pro-Bitcoin policy. So the El Salvadoran government, first of all. They're accumulating Bitcoin, so they recognize that Bitcoin is a strategic treasury asset, that it makes sense at a nation state level to build up Bitcoin reserves, you know, as a essentially a rainy day fund and a way to have savings for the future. Past regulations that make it so that you can spend and earn Bitcoin without having to worry about, you know, having a regulator attack you for that, like here in the United States, they've made it legal tender, so it's fascinating to be able to take a taxi and then pay for my taxi ride using Bitcoin, and it worked really well.
Speaker 1:I was using Lightning down there, so I'd really encourage folks to go visit El Salvador to see it with your own eyes. You know, I was kind of skeptical at first when people were telling me hey, el Salvador is great. Now I was like, well, is it really? I had to fly down there. It's only a three-hour flight from Houston, so it's actually pretty close by. It's the same distance as going to New York or going to Seattle. And seeing it with my own eyes, it's clear that they have definitely made tremendous progress from a security perspective and then also from an economic perspective that it was hustling and bustling down there. You know it's a thriving country and there's still lots of work to be done, as in any country, to continue to improve everyone's standard of living. They're on the right track and they've also passed laws that incentivize entrepreneurialism, to incentivize technology companies to develop there, and that I think is going to dramatically increase both kind of the manufacturing and industrial and commercial aspect of the country, but also the tourism. There's beautiful beaches in El Salvador, beautiful views, the volcano. That was my first time visiting a volcano, so I found that to be fascinating. It was like I don't know out of a movie to see how big it was. The volcanoes were bigger than I thought that they were.
Speaker 1:So I'll be back at the end of the month for the inauguration of Bukele's second term, which he has certainly earned, you know, and he's definitely very popular there. You know it's interesting. You go, you walk into a store and they're selling a T-shirt with his face on it, and they're not doing that because they're required to right. It's not like some kind of weird authoritarian regime where you have to sell T-shirts with the president's face on it. They're doing it because people are really happy with them and they're proud of their country and of what the president's accomplished there in such a short amount of time. And it also, I think, speaks to a generational divide, that Bukele is very young and forward thinking and he's not stuck in kind of the 20th century view of how the monetary system should work, of the 20th century view of how the monetary system should work, and so I think that you know it is a country of the future and it's really exciting to see. You know, what was most exciting for me to see was how happy people were there. You know, people are just naturally smiling in the streets. You contrast that with walking the streets of New York or of Seattle. First of all, less safety, but also a kind of grim look on people's face. So the vibes there were strong. So I think that that wraps it up.
Speaker 1:Next episode there's been a lot of people asking about these proposed upgrades to Bitcoin. Contrary to what folks might think, bitcoin is innovative and has had many upgrades to its software in the past. There's a number of different proposals that are being put forward, so we'll dive into those. Next episode to kind of see what the proposals are, what their tradeoffs are, and you know which ones seem like they would add the most value to the network. So thanks all for joining us today. Appreciate everyone who has been tuning in us today. Appreciate everyone who has been tuning in. Remember to share the podcast with your friends, family, coworkers and also, you know, leave a review, subscribe on your favorite podcast directory and we'll see you next week. Thanks all.