The Chain: Protein Engineering Podcast
The Chain: Protein Engineering Podcast
Episode: 75 - Are Licensing Fees Required or Gatekeeping?
July 15, 2025 | Are licensing fees required or gatekeeping? In this episode of The Chain, host Nimish Gera, vice president of Biologics at Mythic Therapeutics, and Ian Wilkinson, CEO of Gamma Proteins, discuss accessing antibody discovery technology through licensing fees and royalties—and whether these fees are justified or not. Wilkinson delves into the current landscape of antibody discovery technologies, including if AI-based technology warrants fees, how royalties affect both small companies and big pharma, and his background as one of the first experts in the field who offered purely free-for-service options. He also shares what excites him about antibody engineering and beyond.
Links from this episode:
Welcome to the Chain, the podcast exploring the lives, careers, research and discoveries of protein engineers, scientists and biotech professionals. We look at the impact their work is having on the field and where the industry is headed. Tune in to stay up to date on the newest advancements and to hear the stories that are impacting the world of biologics newest advancements and to hear the stories that are impacting the world of biologics.
Nimish Gera :I'm Nimesh Gera, your host for today's episode of The Chain, and it is my pleasure to introduce our guest for today, who's a well-known LinkedIn celebrity and an authority in antibody engineering, Ian Wilkinson. Ian is an accomplished founder, executive and leader and has co-founded three successful startups Gamma Proteins, mabsolve and Absolute Antibody and these startups offer innovative and affordable solutions for the research and the development of protein and antibodies. Welcome to the chain, Ian.
Ian Wilkinson :Thanks very much, Nimit. It's a pleasure to be here.
Nimish Gera :Great. Can you talk a little bit about what you do currently and introduce your background and where you've been in your career?
Ian Wilkinson :Yeah, so let me start at the beginning. So after my PhD I went straight into large pharma with MedImmune, and that was a couple of years after they'd been acquired by AstraZeneca. And the way that that business was structured is they had kind of two different departments in early stage research. The first did what I would call routine antibody discovery. I don't mean to make it sound easy, but it was kind of a standardized process. That's what Humira came out of. And then the other team which I was in was did everything that didn't fit into a standard process. So that was bispecifics, adcs, fc fusions, proteases, blood brain barrier delivery. So it was a fantastic place for me to kind of learn all of these different technologies and how you build a system and everything you can do with with antibodies. It was a fantastic learning ground. But then after about four or five years I became a little bit frustrated and stifled in a in a large, very, very large organization at AZ at that time, and so that's when I decided to kind of jump ship and move into the world of startups and I joined absolute antibody and I went from one extreme to the other. So I went from a organization with 60 000 employees to absolute antibody, whereas I was employee number one and literally walked into an empty lab. So no team, no equipment, nothing. And the really great thing about that was it gave me exposure to everything involved in building a business. So I wasn't just responsible for the science, I was the marketing team, I was the sales team, I was writing the website, I was developing the logo and, again, it was just a phenomenal opportunity for me to kind of learn all these new skills with hands-on experience.
Ian Wilkinson :And trying to touch on the topic of today, I would say that, although Absolute Antibody could be considered as just another CRO, that wasn't really how I thought of it. This was a time you know, we founded it in 2012, and it was a time in the industry when a lot of money, from VCs in particular, was pouring into new startups that were coming out of academic groups. Everybody was. You know, there was a huge boom in antibodies. Everybody was getting involved in the antibody space, but a lot of people didn't really understand what an antibody was. They had some great insight into a novel target or some new insight onto the biology, but they didn't really know how to turn that into a drug. And so what?
Ian Wilkinson :I felt that my responsibility was and the role of Absolute Antibody was to provide services but also provide kind of free consulting as part of that process, help people on that journey in. How do you go from an original idea into something that actually might become a real drug? And this was a pure fee-for-service model that we took. I wouldn't say we were the first Western CRO to be operating in that way and this was a pure fee-for-service model that we took. I wouldn't say we were the first Western CRO to be operating in that way, but I think we possibly were the first where all of our services were fee-for-service. A lot of the others at that point in time still had some services that had milestones and realities associated with them and our strapline was kind of engineered antibodies for all and our belief was that really high quality recombinant services should be accessible to all. It should be democratized. So I think that was kind of a successful part of how we built that business.
Ian Wilkinson :And then we sold the business after about 10 years and I realized I'm not the kind of person that fits well in an organization that's becoming too large.
Ian Wilkinson :I'm not the kind of person that fits well in an organization that's becoming too large, and so I stepped back from that role and spun out a technology on FC Silencing into another company called MabSolve, and again that's taken the approach of trying to make technology accessible to people at an affordable price, and we can probably touch on that later. And then, most recently, again I got itchy feet and decided to start a new business, gamma Proteins, again with the idea that a lot of the underlying technologies behind antibody expression and protein expression and purification are much more accessible these days and it shouldn't cost the earth for people to buy protein reagents. So the simple idea behind Gamma Proteins was to try and make FC receptors in particular accessible at affordable prices. And that's kind of the summary of maybe the last 15 years of my career has been trying to build startup businesses without much money of their own, but also then trying to provide services, technologies or reagents at affordable prices so that others can build biotech companies without having to spend a fortune in drug development.
Nimish Gera :Great Well, thank you for sharing that journey. Since our topic for today is licensing in antibody engineering and biotechnology and you work both at large pharma as well as small companies, can you speak about your experience in this area at those different stages of your career?
Ian Wilkinson :Yes, I was in large farmer. I think I was very naive. I was a relatively junior scientist and it was fair to say that I wasn't involved in licensing discussions. I was obviously aware of kind of the mega deals that go on for hundreds of millions or billions when it comes to kind of the mega deals that go on for hundreds of millions or billions when it comes to licensing kind of clinical stage assets. But I wasn't really aware of what the cost of the underlying technologies was. And I only started to become aware of that once I started Absolute Antibody.
Ian Wilkinson :And there the whole business relied on having an antibody expression platform. So we could produce antibody relatively cheaply, and so we needed access to a transient expression platform. So we could produce antibody relatively cheaply, and so we needed access to a transient expression platform. And really at that time there was only two places in the world to go. There was the National Research Council in Canada, so Yves de Roche's cell line was available through them. Their tech transfer team didn't respond to our emails for about 18 months, at which point the company would have been dead if we hadn't moved in a different direction.
Ian Wilkinson :And then the obvious you know other choice was Thermo. You know, this was before their XP system. So we're talking about the freestyle systems either Heck or Cho. And so we approached their team and said look, this is what we're trying to do as a business. And they said, well, you can access the freestyle system essentially for free business. And they said, well, you can access the freestyle system essentially for free If you are a pure research business. You just buy the reagents and then you let use of them. The reagents, by the way, are not cheap.
Ian Wilkinson :But because we were a commercial entity trying to sell services and products, we said, right, well, this is a little bit different. We're going to charge you an access fee for the technology I think was about half a million dollars, and that might have been annual. And then, on top of that, we're also going to charge 15% royalties on any sales of your products or services. And we were a small startup business that didn't have half a million in the bank. We had $200,000 in the bank and that was meant to build a lab, pay my salary, do everything else.
Ian Wilkinson :So it was just a non-starter. We walked away from that discussion and said, right, the only option we have is to go and build our own system from scratch, and we did that for a fraction of what it would have cost to license from Thermal. But it was my first real exposure to the fact that companies licensing technologies, I think, are often more willing to exclude a lot of customers in the hope they can do one or two very large deals, rather than lowering the cost of access to the technology and trying to make it very accessible at low cost to as many people as possible, and I personally found that very frustrating.
Nimish Gera :Yeah, yeah, that's interesting and, of course, you know I can testify that. You know we work with Absolute Antibody and you guys made some great proteins for us that we continue to use even today. So that was a pretty successful business and I agree that you really supported the team in a way where you're also providing consulting and bouncing ideas, brainstorming with them, which was a very different model than what I'd seen with some of the other CROs and similar to you. For a company like us that was very small and only have a couple of employees, sometimes it's good to have an external eye on the work that we are trying to do so that we can bounce ideas and make sure that we're all heading in the right direction.
Nimish Gera :So now, maybe going more into your work on Absolute Antibody and you mentioned this earlier that in your mind, you were sort of one of the first ones that were offering purely fee-for-service options, and I know that one of the technologies that you guys were offering was humanization. And then, of course, at Mapsol, we talked about the FC silencing technology. So what led you to focus on these specific areas and how did you guys go about providing access to the community? I would also want to ask, as a second layer to this question how was this perceived by so-called management at your company? I mean you were management right, but I mean you're trying to do something where others are traditionally trying to make money and, you know, get those mega deals. And it's a mindset change to really say we're now going to make this fee for service and we're going to provide this access to a lot of companies.
Ian Wilkinson :So I'll answer the second part of the question first, if you don't mind.
Nimish Gera :Yeah go ahead.
Ian Wilkinson :I was very fortunate at Absolute Antibody that we were founded by primarily a group of academics, so Jeff Hale, Neil Barclay and a few others that had been in the antibody industry for decades, from the very beginning, from kind of the early 80s when hybrid elements were first developed, and it was their strong belief that you know, these services and technologies have been around for decades at this point and they should not cost a fortune for people to access. And they were frustrated as academics that it would cost them a fortune to access technologies often that they had been involved in developing themselves. So you know, Jeff was one of the first to humanize an antibody. Neil Barclay was involved in developing some early cell lines and yet they were having to pay license fees for access to these technologies. So that was a great frustration to them and so we didn't really have much work to do to persuade the management and the board that that was the direction that you know that was the whole idea behind behind the business. So it was relatively straightforward from from that side of things in terms of the services we were offering and how we selected them. Really that was based primarily on on my experience, and I'd been humanizing antibodies a couple of years prior to setting up absolute antibody and we developed a very efficient platform for antibody production. And then if you can produce a small panel of antibodies very cheaply, then that fits with humanization, where you normally want to make a small library of antibodies, screen them and and test them.
Ian Wilkinson :So I think we first offered a humanization service around 2014 and I would say in the in the decades before that, so certainly in the 90s and the early 2000s, people were were getting away with very large deals worth probably tens of millions and significant royalties on top of that. By the time we were offering the service it wasn't quite that case. I was still seeing deals worth maybe a quarter of a million upfront and maybe single digit royalties. But a number of companies at that point in time had started to offer kind of pure fee for service humanization, but they were typically in the $60,000 plus territory. We launched our service at $30,000 or under, so we were half the price of of everybody else in the in the world.
Ian Wilkinson :But the funny thing is that kind of created a lot of skepticism, because then I would have customers approach me and say, well, how can you offer this so cheaply? You know what are you doing differently? And often they wouldn't. They wouldn't trust me, they would go. Well, you've not had any antibodies in the clinic. Well, yes, because we've only just started offering the service and it just wasn't believable. And it's funny.
Ian Wilkinson :It kind of goes back to marketing and sales pitch. I and my sales pitch was too simplistic and I was telling people yes, we can offer the service for $30,000 because it's a 30-year-old plus technology that's very tried and tested and we understand how to do it. We don't need to charge a fortune for it. And actually we were still making very good margins on it. Providers you could see that they would provide a lot of mystique. They would kind of disguise the service in a black box. They would give it a fancy name. They would say we're doing, you know, super complicated things and you have to come to us because we're the only people that can really do humanization with this novel process. The reality is they were all doing the same thing. They just had this marketing gimmick around it. So it took me about a year to actually convince the first customer to place an order for humanization with us. And then, once you've had one customer, it kind of starts to snowball from there. But I changed my sales pitch and started convincing people that it's not as straightforward as I was originally saying. But the underlying service never actually changed. It was just the twist in the sales pitch that changed. So that was very successful.
Ian Wilkinson :And then with MabZolve and FC silencing, again our approach again the co-founder of MabZolve is Jeff Hill and again our approach was that there are plenty of FC mutations that are available, especially for silencing, of varying degrees of silencing. So from not very silent to pretty good, Some are IP3 and some aren't. And you know, through all the assays that we've done we've kind of proved that ours are the best out there. But we knew that a lot of people wouldn't be willing to pay a lot of money for them and we had the option right at the beginning of the business of two approaches that we could take. We could take perhaps the more traditional approach, which is going to try and do one large deal, sell it to a large pharma company for X amount and then walk away, and it wasn't really what we were in it for.
Ian Wilkinson :We developed what we thought was a superior technology and we wanted to see it on as many antibodies in the clinic as possible. So we took the opposite approach, which is make it as affordable as possible. Yes, we are a business, we're trying to make money. We don't shy away from that, but make it so it's accessible and allow people to access the technology on relatively simple terms. So all we have is is kind of an annual license fee, which is is very low, and then clinical milestones, and those milestones only run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, not millions, not tens of millions and there's no royalties on on top of it. So when you consider the development costs of an antibody, access to our, our technology is a very, very small slice of that cost, and so it means that we've done deals with small startup companies, academic groups, as well as large pharma companies, and so, again, that idea that we have of trying to make the technology as accessible as possible.
Nimish Gera :Great yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Welcome:Are you enjoying the conversation? We'd love to hear from you. Please subscribe to the podcast and give us a rating. It helps other people find and join the conversation. If you've got speaker or topic ideas, we'd love to hear those too. You can send them in a podcast review.
Nimish Gera :You know you touched on this as regards to humanization, but really a lot of the technologies that we still use today were developed in the 90s and are becoming commoditized by more and more contract research organizations. Yet there are a lot of them where we are still paying, for example, technology access fees, licensing fees, as you described, royalties as well as milestones, and sometimes these are technologies that have been developed by a CRO that have made no change or upgrades to that technology in the last 15 or even 20 years. And you know, in my mind I just feel like it's is it still fair to say that these might be the cutting edge or the best thing out there? Fair to say that these might be the cutting edge or the best thing out there, and do they still warrant or justify this type of licensing fee? And to some extent you know you mentioned this it's also like a, it's a herd mentality. When one company gets it, then you're like what am I missing out on? And then people keep doing this over and over again.
Nimish Gera :But the underlying technology and the sort of distinction or edge that the technology offers may actually not be that much. So I'm particularly I'm frustrated a little bit about some of the discovery technologies that we come along, and as a small startup company where we want to do a lot of discovery work, we find ourselves in the situation where you go to CROs and a lot of them are charging you these large licensing and technology accessing fees. So I guess in your mind do you think there are technologies right now that do warrant these type of fees, or where would you think those type of fees would make sense? What do you think about the current landscape, say, of antibody discovery technologies? There's a lot of questions in there, but a particularly important and personal thing for me so I really want to hear your thoughts.
Ian Wilkinson :I can feel the frustration, nimish, and I share a lot of those frustrations as well, and I guess my overall view is that you know a lot of these things have become commoditized and shouldn't cost what many of them do cost. You know, discovery these days you're typically paying maybe $200,000 as an upfront fee and then you know a few million in milestones and then potentially you know 1%, 2%, 3% in royalties. Yet, as you say, all the service providers are providing basically the same service, whether it's face display or mammalian display. You could argue, maybe with something like mammalian display that when that was originally developed, then maybe it's worth paying a little bit more for it and having some kind of access fee associated with it. But as these technologies become older and certainly once they're 20, 30 years old and there's been very little development to them over that period of time then I think it becomes more and more difficult for service providers to justify the charges there, and I think what we are seeing is an increasing number of Chinese CROs, but also others in Europe and the US US who are getting rid of those barriers. I think on LinkedIn the other day I saw somebody offering a nanobody discovery service. I think they were charging $12,000, no milestones, no royalties, just simple access fee to the technology. And so there is an increasing push from those kind of companies. But the companies that were in early, that have got molecules in the clinic and have got that kind of premium service offering, are still able to get away with providing these things. But I think over the next five to 10 years, in discovery in particular, we'll see that fall away because I think there's going to be a big push from all the others that aren't offering, that are offering kind of pure fee-for-service. And I think that moves into almost everything.
Ian Wilkinson :You know bispecifics were first developed in the 90s with knobs into holes and then, you know, cross-mav was 2010. A lot of these technologies over the next five to 10 years are coming off patent ADCs and site-specific conjugation. You know, if you've ever been involved in ADCs which I know you're, you are and try to license some of the technologies there, the fees they charge you enormous. But again, over the next five, ten years those, those technologies are going to come off patent. So I would argue that there's not many things that come to mind where I think it really justifies extortionate fees. I think you know fees in the hundreds of thousands, maybe low millions. I think that's understandable, you know, if people have put in a lot of time and effort into developing a technology, making something that's as good or better than anything else that's out there. But when you're providing a standardized service based on a technology that was developed 20 or 30 years ago, I think it becomes difficult to justify these things.
Nimish Gera :Yeah, I guess, in terms of what could justify something like this, do you think the AI-based antibody discovery technologies that are quite popular these days and we're seeing more and more companies popping up in that space is that an area that would still justify fees like these? Or I'm just trying to think where it makes the most sense and hopefully people are listening to us when we post this podcast and try to you know, understand how people on the other side feel when they have to pay these kind of fees.
Ian Wilkinson :I think it probably is the one area where, over the next 10 years, I think we will see it heavily is the adoption of AI and then the fees involved in access to those technologies. Now I've posted on LinkedIn a lot about AI and I don't want to shift the topic too much onto AI.
Ian Wilkinson :But, I think once we are in a position where one or two providers can really provide de novo antibody discovery against difficult targets that you can't easily hit with traditional approaches you know, getting high affinity and developable antibodies so you know the real holy grail of AI then I think that probably does warrant some kind of access fee, milestone payments and maybe royalties, until you get to a point where there's then 20 service providers that are all providing that. Then you would hope that people start to undercut each other and those fees come down. But I think we will see a period of five, maybe 10 years where access to those technologies is probably very high. It won't be affordable to the small biotechs. It will only be affordable to large pharma that either partner with those companies or develop those technologies in-house. But in 20 years you would hope that those prices are coming down and maybe the fees are disappearing. But outside of AI I can't think of many other places where it's really justified at the moment.
Ian Wilkinson :But if there is a revolutionary technology, then I'm not against people charging for it. I think it's fair enough if you develop something that is groundbreaking. What's frustrating is when you develop something that's the same as what's already been there and then still charge the fee.
Nimish Gera :Yeah, I guess you know why I went to this topic was as we were discussing in the last question. You mentioned especially providers that have molecules in the clinic or even approved with the technologies that they've utilized, from a certain you know CRO or a company. Then those companies can charge a lot of premium because now they have something that's in the clinic and on the AI side though, we're early in that process, right. So I guess it's almost like maybe there'll be a peak and then eventually, once there's an approval or something, then people will be more and more interested in it, but then eventually maybe it'll become more democratized over the next few years. So we'll see how that goes Good, you also touched upon an important point about the distinction between large companies versus small companies having the ability to access some of these things.
Nimish Gera :So, for example, you know, royalties can be prohibitive for, like, a small company that's looking to partner something with a large pharma, for example, and the large pharma might see royalties as a liability, like why should I take or license this product from this company because they partnered with someone else, or they licensed this with or worked on a technology that required them to pay a royalty to this other CRO which is a third party in this transaction. Why should I even be involved? And what I have seen and I mean I would say we have been fortunate to find and maybe even work with some of those people that some of the CROs are actually switching to a non-royalty model, but also like a single payment model at an inflection point, like an IND or start of a clinical trial, and I see that very much more of a fair deal, because you're charging a large amount but you're charging it when something has got to that stage and become more successful. What are your thoughts on that and have you seen that happening in the field as well?
Ian Wilkinson :Yeah, I've definitely seen it happening and I think it's a good thing. I agree, royalties can be very hard to deal with and if you're accessing multiple technologies that you're building into your antibody, then you've got royalty stacking and it can become very difficult to then make a large pharma deal in the future. I agree, I think the more sensible approach for both sides is to have clinical milestone payments with no royalties and a one-off payment at an inflection point.
Ian Wilkinson :I think makes a lot of sense and that's not quite the approach that we took with Babsolve, where we have milestones all the way through, but we very much back-ended it with the idea that both parties are taking the risk.
Ian Wilkinson :If, if you are successful, then we are successful, and if, if it fails, then then nobody really makes any money out of it, and I think that's a. That's a fair deal all around and and and. If you set an inflection point at phase one or phase three and you set it at an appropriate scale where you know, for instance, if you're going to phase three you're going to be raising hundreds of millions of dollars. If the milestone that goes back to an original CRO that did the discovery work or had an FCU silencing technology, whatever it may be, if that's in the low millions compared to the hundreds of millions that you're raising, it's fairly insignificant at that point and yet it's a great deal for whoever the CRO was. So I think those kind of deals to me make a lot of sense and work all around and I would like to think that that maybe is the future direction of these kind of transactions.
Nimish Gera :Yeah, I guess in the antibody engineering space, maybe more in general, and then we can talk about licensing as well. People are talking a lot about AI overall, but I guess what excites you the most? I mean, you do a lot of reviews and analyses and of course you're posting a lot on LinkedIn, so you're reading very broadly and I guess in your mind what excites you beyond, say, ai, because I know we've talked a lot about, and a lot of people talk about that In terms of, like pure antibody engineering technologies that could make a difference and perhaps, maybe in the future, warrant some sort of licensing piece.
Ian Wilkinson :So I think actually for me the interesting thing is that and I might be challenged on this, but I think a lot of the work has already been done. So I think we've made so much development in the 90s and the early 2000s with bispecifics, you know, first creating kind of heavy chain pairing and then light chain pairing. We've got adcs, we've got cartes. There's been a huge amount of protein engineering um that I'm fascinated by. I love it as a, as a topic. Obviously I'm an antibody engineer by my background, um. But now I think we're in a position where it's, you know, how do we really start to execute on those and how do we turn those into real drugs? And we're seeing, over the last few years in particular, huge amount of progress in ADCs. There's been a lot of ADC deals that have gone on over the last few years. The same in bispecifics and multispecifics. There's tri and tetraspecifics in the clinic now. So I think what's exciting for me is not so much what's the next step in antibody engineering, but it's starting to see the outcome of that engineering over the last 20 or 30 years and how that plays out in the clinic. And now I think the challenge is less of an engineering challenge and more of a biology challenge. What are the right targets to select, the right patients to go into, and those kind of questions that I'm not really the specialist in um, but I think I think that's where the the real excitement is, and maybe the one engineering space that I would I would say is kind of what I think david baker and his group would call kind of logic gated systems where you can have kind of and not or or type binders.
Ian Wilkinson :Trying in particular, I think, in in areas like oncology where you can have kind of and not or or type binders. Trying in particular, I think, in in areas like oncology where you're trying to avoid off-target toxicity and you want to only bind certain cell types that have certain antigens on them, because it's very difficult to find an antigen that is truly specific to a cancer cell. So so can you find a selection of antigens and can you develop a system where you only bind if A, b and C are there and if D is there you don't bind or you don't engage. So there's a lot of work that's going on very early stage. I've not seen anybody take it anywhere close to the clinic yet, but I think that is a really interesting space. I suspect AI will probably help in that, because these are not simple things to design. But it's kind of going beyond where we are with multi-specifics in the moment, where you typically engage with whatever target is there, and this would be a kind of a next generation version of what you can do with multi-specifics.
Nimish Gera :Great. Well, I guess we're almost towards the end of our podcast here, but I was going to ask you is there something we haven't discussed about the licensing space, or generally in antibody engineering, uh, that you would like to share with the listeners? Uh, and talk about?
Ian Wilkinson :I think I've possibly just covered it all in the answer to the last question. I think it's a, like I said, it's a phenomenally exciting time. I hope in the future I think what we are seeing is already the removal of this barrier to entry. That's what frustrates me and I think from what you said previously is what frustrates you is you tend to see a lag in adoption. So I think half-life extension let's use that as an example.
Ian Wilkinson :So you know, yte and LS were developed in the early 2000s, but they were owned by Medimune and Zencore. Now Zencore, you could potentially get access to it, but it was very expensive, and so what we saw is very few half-life extended antibodies went into the clinic in the last 20 years. Yes, but now if you look at phase one antibodies and if you look at pre-clinical antibodies, yte is everywhere because it's now off patent. I think it's been off patent two or three years. Yeah, but you've got a 20-year lag in in access to that technology because you know, in that space at least, there was no other option.
Ian Wilkinson :You either had to develop your own technology it was maybe too hard and too costly for small biotechs to consider doing or you had to license it and there was nobody to license it from. So the only option was to go without it, and you have to wait 20 years for the patent to expire. And I think what we're going to see over the next 10 years is all the patents are going to expire on all of these underlying technologies and then you've got a suite of FC mutations that you can select from to develop the optimal antibody. Rather than just going with an IP3 route, which is what most small biotechs take, is they select what gives them freedom to operate, but isn't necessarily the most optimal molecule, whereas I think, moving forward, we'll be in a position where you can develop the most optimal molecule and hopefully that will lead to better drugs in the clinic.
Nimish Gera :Great Well, ian. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me and also sharing your experience with the listeners and for our listeners. Please tune in as we release new episodes and enjoy listening to this one as well as some of our previous episodes on the Chain website or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you everyone.