Why Decentralization Matters - Gilad Edelman, Mary-Catherine Lader, Lane Rettig, Frankie Pangilinan

All good. All good. Uh, have we been introduced yet? Okay, great. Hello, I'm Gilad.

I'm a writer at Wired and, uh, kind of a representative of the and, uh, kind of a representative of the , of, uh, common world. And, uh, in that sense, I think I'd like to talk about questions about fundamental principles, because if you explain to me why your L2 solution is different, I won't understand anything. So, uh, I thought I'd start by having everyone introduce themselves and briefly explain what they're working on. Brilliant. Hey, do you want to start?

I'll start . Okay. Uh, my name is Nick. I am replacing the person from Uniswap. So, uh, sorry if you were hoping to see someone from Uniswap.

My project is called Fuel and the organization is Fuel Labs, and we work on sustainable scalability technology for Ethereum, particularly in layer 2 and, above all, in something you don't yet know about: modular execution layers. So modular execution layers. So , uh, that's what I do. Hi, my name is Frankie. Work in Balance.

I am head of research and development. We have an amazing team, and if you see anyone from there, please ask them questions. We are making a native extension for Safari. Uh, I explicitly hope this is the year of wallets. We're going to push the limits.

Brilliant. And Lane. Hi everyone, I'm Lane. I am a lead developer on a project called Space Mesh. We are building the most decentralized blockchain the world has ever seen .

Uh, excited to talk about that, what it means and why it's important. Uh, and yes, I haven't been in the common world for five or six years. They'll have to tell me how things are going over there. Yes, we are all very scared and worried about what is happening here. Uh, but, uh, but I gather from all of you here that you're essentially running, uh, charities.

So, that's great. Okay, Lane, let's start with you then, since you're building the most decentralized blockchain of all. So, from your perspective, what does centralization mean and why is it bad? Yes. Okay, then, I'm glad we're starting with the basics.

No, I don't think centralization is inherently bad. Let me, let me be very clear about that, okay? I, I be very clear about that, okay? I, I , I think there are , there are compensations, right? That is, if blockchain has taught me anything, if protocol design has taught me anything these past few years.

Ah, yes. Okay. Wow, that's an ice cream cone, right? Yes. Yes, uh, my work in blockchain and protocol design has taught me something in recent years has taught me something in recent years , which is that everything is a trade-off and nothing is free.

So, you know, I think centralization is great when you need efficiency, when that 's the most important thing you need, 's the most important thing you need, right? But the problem with centralization is, ultimately , corruption. I'll leave it there for now, and we can delve deeper into what that means and how we avoid it with decentralization. So, just to develop that a little bit, and then maybe Frankie can chime in. But when you say that the problem with centralization is corruption, what characteristic of centralization are you talking about?

Is it that too much power is concentrated in too few hands? Frankie, do you have any opinion on this? Um, I'll answer this in a moment. Bring that microphone much closer to your face. Ah, yes, yes, yes.

I feel like I should answer this in a somewhat indirect way. I think my favorite reference point right now is realizing, I think in the early days of Facebook, when photographers would upload their images to Facebook and realize that they no longer owned those photos. And so, this is a clear sign of centralization and not understanding, you know, how that works. And when we, like, take away power and dispossess...Yes.

Put that microphone right there. Ah, right here. Okay. Um, I think for me, this vision of centralization is this ability to strip people of what they are and who they are on the internet, and not be able to own what they want and what makes them who they are. Brilliant.

So, Nick, what are your thoughts on decentralization your thoughts on decentralization ? What does it mean to decentralize if we live in a world that's excessively centralized? How do you know? And let me put it another way. If you're looking at something that matters to you, how do you judge whether it's significantly decentralized?

Um, so I think to get into it, is this volume okay? it, is this volume okay? Is it okay? Okay. So, considering I just joined this panel, I'll have to think of something really eye-catching.

You can also just skip it. You can. No, no, I'm not going to pass. So, I would say to start with that decentralization is very, very key because you're trying to create a system that doesn't break down so easily. So creating systems that are durable—and durability is very, very key—and then breaking down human power structures in a way that no particular person can have too much power because humans make mistakes.

Vitalik makes mistakes all the time. We love him, but he makes mistakes. We don't want any one side to have too much power. Well, we've seen what happens when that occurs, depending, you know, on what you think about the world. So decentralization gives us a tool to break that.

In a way that can still be valuable to humanity, but at the same time, you know, we can still have a driving force to change the system and make it work. Yes. So the question I keep coming back to is, if you look at the history of the internet, how the fundamental internet protocols and email protocols and other things are decentralized. They are very decentralized, and yet we see cycles throughout the history of the Internet where someone appears at some other layer of abstraction and centralizes power over them. And that's more or less the story of Web 2.

0 more or less the story of Web 2.0 . Uh, and I'm sure you 're all familiar with Moxie Marlinspike's recent blog post on this, but I'll read a bit of it because if I try to paraphrase it, I'll say something wrong. But he argues, and I'd like to know your thoughts on this, uh know your thoughts on this, uh , Frankie, to begin with. Uh, so he says: what I find strange about web 3 is, uh blah, blah, blah, in order to make these technologies usable, the space is consolidating around platforms, which brings us back, uh, uh, sorry Lane, I forgot your name, to Lane's point about the convenience of centralization, and he gives a couple of examples.

So he creates an NFT, gets it, OpenSea deletes it and it disappears from his wallets, which is n't supposed to be possible, but he notices that his wallets aren't actually interacting directly with the blockchain themselves. They are making calls to one or two centralized providers of that service. So, their conclusion is that, given how early it is, it's a bad omen that space is already seeing that kind of consolidation. So, frankly, what do you think of that criticism that we're already seeing a layer of somewhat centralized service providers because it's difficult for the user to interact directly with the blockchain? Yes.

Well, um, I think, I know, I think that for, for this, I would have to say that everything is like taking two steps forward and one step back, right? We are seeing a lot of centralization. So, if we look at MetaMask today, almost all the traffic we see in the Ethereum ecosystem goes through Infura, and if it doesn't go through Infura, it goes through Alchemy, so we're seeing that providers are already centralizing that and collecting all that data, and I think we're just going to continue this cycle, right? And it will continue this cycle, right? And it will , and it simply reconnects with innovation.

So we need to start seeing things, and I like that it brings us back to the other side of the cycle as we continue to move forward and upward. But, but what, Lane, what's going to stop the cycle? I feel like in this, you know, in the second Matrix, Neo arrives, spoiler alert, by the way. Neo reaches the end, mmm, and meets the Architect, and discovers that there have been eight matrices, and, mmm, the, you know, that people keep thinking they've defeated the Matrix, and then they're wrong, and that's, you know, it's all part of, it's all internal to the simulation part of, it's all internal to the simulation . And I get a bit of that feeling here, which is like, "Oh no, this time we're going to decentralize it," and then the cycle keeps happening.

So Lane, my question for you is: what do you see in Web3 that has the potential to really break the cycle, because obviously Neo does break the cycle? So what do you see now that is fiction, but what do you see in Web3 that offers the potential to truly break free from that cycle? Yes. No, excellent question. I'm glad we've gotten to the heart of the matter, because I think this is probably the most important question we as a community could and should be talking about right now.

Also, first things first , for anyone in this audience who hasn't yet read the article you're referring to, the one by Moxy Marlinspike, I forget the title. I think it's something like "some thoughts on Web3" or something like that. So, after this panel, find a quiet place and read it because it's the most valid critique of Web3 and decentralization I've ever read. So, read it and think about it. It's important.

Returning to the question, I think Moxy hit the nail on the head with usability. I think that's what it all boils down to . I also want to say that this is what keeps me up at night as someone who is conceiving and building decentralized protocols and applications. Looking exactly at your point about what happened to the original web, the original internet, right? The excitement in the 90s about democratization, the freedom that these technologies were going to bring, these open protocols, very similar to the energy we have here today.

And what happened in the end, how they were largely captured by Google, Facebook, and things like that, Google, Facebook, and things like that, right? So, again, going back to the original website example, managing a mail server is difficult. I've done it. I tried to do it again recently . There's a reason everyone uses Gmail: because running a mail server is damn hard.

And mining most blockchain protocols today is really very difficult. I'm talking about layer 1, but something similar happens in layer 2. If you want to manage a validator layer 2. If you want to manage a validator , if you want to manage a node, if you want to manage a sequencer, any of these things. So our focus at Space Mesh is to make it incredibly simple.

You download an application, run it in the background, and forget about it. And you know, Moxy said in that article that the core problem is that people don't want to manage servers. I would add that they don't want to manage miners or nodes because it's complicated. If you make it as easy as possible, I think that's the best chance we have. Just focus on usability.

Mhm. Nick, what do you think about that? Yes, I mean , I think if we continue to use Infura the way we do without verification tests, we've basically failed as a community in addressing most of these issues. Because, you know, Infura and similar systems, in a sense, only serve data; But the data is verifiable, yet no one verifies it. So, basically, they're worthless in many ways.

You simply trust a website most of the time, and most projects here don't do any of that; they don't give you any verification, they really don't care. Can I...that 's a really interesting point. And this is, again, as someone who is n't really technical, a thought I often have, which is: I understand the appeal of blockchains providing transparency and immutability and that the data will be there. But I wonder how deep that problem is, how small the number of human beings who will be willing or able to perform that verification is, and how significant it is.

It's like...well, look at this, maybe it's a conceptual leap, but look how angry the people at Bored Ape got when they were exposed for simply looking at public records and publishing them looking at public records and publishing them . Those records were public, . Those records were public, right? But nobody goes to the building to look for them.

And I wonder how that problem might be transferred to this space. Yes. I think that, first of all, making things as easy as possible to really take advantage of the technology we have, whether it's running nodes or verifying cryptographic proofs, can be done very easily. And it can also be done in a way that makes it trivial. It's no bigger an obstacle to the user experience than what you see in Web 2.

0. They simply don't do it because there's a huge financial incentive to launch products and not worry about these things. These things still don't matter to many people things still don't matter to many people . But if you're building the system correctly, it should be so easy to run that it won't be a problem. For example, the Ethereum architecture is quite difficult to implement.

And Infura had to sit down and figure out how to run many nodes in a scalable way just to serve us data. So that we could use it without having to run our own node. But that was because the node wasn't designed for data. It was designed only to run Ethereum, only the protocol. They didn't think about the data when they built it.

So when you build things for what we see now, that is, how people use them now, that is, how people use them , it's much easier to say: well, as long as you meet these requirements, you can run your own verification you can run your own verification . Well, this makes me think of another point, Frankie, that Moxy mentions in her post, and that is that protocols move more slowly than platforms. And it seems that the challenge Nick poses is like: yes, you've figured out what they didn't think of before, but obviously you're not thinking about anything now. And frankly, it feels like the challenge is how to develop a system that can be updated and flexible as quickly as a centralized platform when you realize we weren't prepared for this. You 're leaving me with all the difficult questions, aren't you?

Uh, so I mean, we'll have a relaxed five- minute session at the end where you can promote your coins if that helps you. That's why I'm here. I don't know about you. Um, yes. Yes.

Yes. Mic, mic, mic, mic microphone. Um, I honestly think I'm having a little trouble concentrating on this panel because every time something is mentioned, all I can think about is thin clients. Where the hell are the light customers, you know? And it makes me wonder why even these centralized organizations need centralized organizations need ...

I think they are in as much danger as anyone else for not investing resources in developing thin clients. I believe that, of course, the thin client is the apple at the top of the tree that we all try to reach. But it will be the thing that gets us out of this cycle. Otherwise, we will remain trapped in the centralized part. We won't be able to run it; we need lightweight clients that run in the browser.

We need lightweight clients that are efficient on phones, and yes, I know it's hard work. But a big part of that work is also that we need to dedicate real manpower and resources to it , and pay attention to it in the coming years, because we will get stuck and not know how to get out of this. And yes, protocols take a long time to develop, we've seen it with E2 and how it changes. But there are some things that perhaps if we start very simply and just focus on reading and being able to read efficiently, that would at least help a little. But we are reaching a point where resources will become expensive.

I just want to say that, since this is an Ethereum conference and I don't know how many people know about thin clients or what a thin client is or why it's important, but since you 're at an Ethereum conference, I'll say that Solana doesn't have thin clients. So woo, a little spice, a little spice for you. Good. Out there at home they do n't know what that is, but eventually they'll learn, you know, yeah, well, yeah. Can I, can I intervene?

So. Thin clients are very important, I couldn't agree more, we also think about this a lot in our work, uh, going back a bit to... Wait Lane, just, just a second, yes Wait Lane, just, just a second, yes , maybe there are people out there who do n't really know what a thin client is , I don't, so, can you? So, this is great, let's make the transition. Typically, if you want to participate as a full peer in the blockchain network, whether it's Bitcoin or Ethereum or any other type of protocol, you do what's called running a full node.

And what a full node does is download every block, every transaction, execute every transaction, every state transition, just like any other node and any other miner. And that's very easy to do for a protocol like Bitcoin where the performance is relatively low, it doesn't require much processing power, memory, etc. It's difficult for Ethereum to do. And it's basically impossible to do for a protocol like Solana that has an extraordinarily high performance, right? You need to; you couldn't do it on a laptop or a phone.

You need specialized hardware to do it. The idea behind a thin client is that you outsource some of that work, right? So your node isn't executing every single transaction. It simply does something like check the block headers. So it makes sure that the blocks are in the correct order, that the blocks are valid, that you're not missing any blocks.

You're not actually processing all the data. You're trusting a little. So it's not "trustless" in the way that running a full node is. It is partially reliable in the sense that you trust that the nodes sending you the blocks are themselves executing the transactions in the blocks, but you know that you have all the blocks in the correct order. That's why it's called a thin client.

You're doing some of the work, but not all of it. But the important point here is that you can do this on any hardware you can do this on any hardware . You can do this even on a phone, right? Or in a web browser in MetaMask, something like that in theory. And again, because of legacy blockchains, it's very difficult with a lot of old technology to do things that are really fun, like running lightweight clients on phones, because they are limited by their old design.

And then this comes back to what you mentioned about upgradeability, which is, you know, key to this. Uh, and I think the new protocols that are being designed are being designed with thin clients in mind, particularly those that use, for example, Merkle ranges that use, for example, Merkle ranges , where it simply means that you could potentially have a root of the entire state on your phone. It is very light. It's just a few, you know, a few bytes, something like that. So it's very small.

But again, if we don't have a philosophy and mindset about verifying things and creating this environment for real decentralization, then you'll be using things through a website run by a company in a jurisdiction with a board of directors. And you're subject to its entire structure, and that's all there is to it. And there is no blockchain. You could do that right now . And in many ways, it can be argued that traditional fintech is more decentralized than some current systems, because, to be honest, there are simply more companies doing things.

There are more people checking, you know. So, in a sense, it's very easy to fall victim to this. Yes, we'll go back to that point, but Frankie had something to say. I believe that Solo, as you say, is true decentralization, and I would love to sit here and say, "completely decentralize everything." But to do that, I do n't think everyone necessarily needs to be able to run their own client.

Agreeing with this concept would be like saying that everyone should live off the land, and we recognize that the reason we have cities is so we don't have to deal with solving our own needs on our own. You probably have to trust someone somewhere. Yes, but I think there is a need for balance, and I think that, yes, we have to maintain, when designing protocols, there must be constant attention to whether it is efficient. constant attention to whether it is efficient. Will this work well?

Can anyone run this? And I think many of us are stuck behind our MacBook Pros and working with some of the best equipment. But yes, I think the constant focus is on whether we're creating a resource class system and whether this can run on any device and whether there's an option to do so. But I also want to make it clear that I'm not totally against having federated servers and all that stuff. Yes, it's actually very good.

There are many interesting designs where you could have something federated, but it involves a lot of testing. So there are systems that make sense for that. But again, if you set requirements for a node, or if you require ASICs, for example, which are very wasteful, you know, for mining, and you require them in your protocol, first of all you will be enormously destructive. And secondly, um, you know, you're not having a democratized system. So, philosophically, it goes against the original vision of many of the cypherpunk things we saw with Bitcoin and what we tried to continue with Ethereum, what Vitalik tried to continue with his designs.

So I think it's really something you have to be religious about because you want a democratized basic protocol. You don't want a highly centralized base protocol . Yes. So I want to get back to that, Lane. Yes.

So I think we might be on the same page here. Feel free to take a different direction if we're not. We're talking about technological solutions, right? And I believe that technology has to be part of the solution. But going back to the question you asked earlier, how do we ensure that the protocols continue to evolve and don't stagnate or get captured?

There is a social aspect to that as well. So I was thinking of going back in that direction. I think the answer there is governance. And I think many protocols are trying to answer this question right now, which is: this question right now, which is: how do we allow our community, our protocol, to self-disrupt? Um our protocol, to self-disrupt?

Um , I've seen some really exciting things happening in various blockchain communities, layer 1, layer 2. We haven't been very good at this so far. And as you know, Bitcoin has stopped making big changes, more or less. There are no more hard forks in Bitcoin. Ethereum is also ossifying over time in certain important ways.

So this is a constant challenge. But I think governance is the answer to that original question on the social side, right? Well, and take care of your developers. I mean, we all saw that tweet where the Bitcoin developers aren't getting paid. The exhaustion is real.

Receiving payments and not being sued is also important. Well, this, I mean, but to summarize what you 're saying, this sounds dangerously close to people needing, that we should trust that people will be different from how people have always been. Well, but, but, uh, Nick, I'm glad you mentioned the fintech example because I think you hit on a very interesting point, which is that you can think about centralization and decentralization at the level of the architecture of what you use level of the architecture of what you use , but you can also think about it in terms of choice. And then your point was that fintech, in a way point was that fintech, in a way , like web 2, is somewhat more decentralized because at least you have different options. And uh, Lane, I was actually going to ask you that question about how much decentralization is about having options.

I think it's all about having options. I'll give you a metaphor that I like to use sometimes. Hey. Democracy, is it good? Not everyone votes all the time.

Uh, you know, you should vote. I try to vote, but I don't always do it for one reason or another, do it for one reason or another, right? But if I want to vote, I can . That option is still there. And if things get bad enough, I'll vote.

And we have seen that this happens. We saw it happen in the last presidential election in this country. So I think decentralization is similar. Even if we don't all vote every time, even if we don't all run our own nodes and constantly check things, the fact that we have the option to do so, and that if things get really bad, we will . I think that's very important .

I think that's very important . And we need to implement credible systems, credible incentive structures . We need to integrate credible neutrality into the designs of our protocols so that this remains the case. And, in fact, I strongly disagree with a point you made a moment ago, which is that we depend on people acting differently than they have before. That's not the case.

I believe that, on the contrary, these protocols are built on an understanding of human nature. Leveraging that through the design of mechanisms, cryptography, and these tools we now have to build structures resistant to human tendencies such as corruption and...yes. That's how it is. Well, to summarize a couple of these topics here, like the choice of vote, fintech is actually a very interesting case because, um, it exists thanks to a law that was passed in the Dodd-Frank financial reform in 2010, which included a requirement for your bank to allow you to extract your data from the bank, and that's why you can interact with applications like Mint or better alternatives, and, um like Mint or better alternatives, and, um , that's why you have that option in the market.

Um, and you might think that was an act of Congress. It was a representative act of government. It's related to this voting thing, which is like a protocol of some kind. Democracy is a kind of protocol that is a legal protocol. Yes of course.

Yes. I mean, there are different types of protocols. Democracy is the first decentralized protocol. Perhaps it is somewhat decentralized, but in reality it is federated. Um, but Frankie, wouldn't it be great if we could save ourselves a lot of trouble and development hours if Congress just passed a law requiring interoperability?

Oh my God, why did you ask that question again? Very sorry. Wouldn't it be great, and kind of a shortcut, if Congress could pass some laws requiring, you know, interoperability and data portability and things like that? Wouldn't that get us much closer to the goal you 're working toward? Um, I can answer that if you want.

I mean, you asked me before that protocols move slower, you know, than user-oriented applications . This is essentially reiterating the same question with different terms. Government moves much slower than software. I mean, if you look at how far we've come and they're just now catching up , it's like...it's the internet.

It's always been the wild west and it still is, even if there are more laws and we have the GDPR and, you know, Europe has tried to pass privacy laws. They'll never achieve it; They are an archaic system that we are essentially replacing that we are essentially replacing . How can an archaic system that hasn't even caught up with what we're doing govern what's happening now? I totally sympathize with that, and obviously the government is really messed up in many ways, but no, I mean, sorry, just to continue that line of thought for a second, if they could do something like that, would we even be here in the first place? Well, that's my question, that's what I 'm asking you.

The thing is, there's a big difference between setting a legal precedent for companies to follow in data and interoperability and, essentially, a platform, or in this sense, a decentralized platform that people can actually leverage, uh, the low-level protocol and not have to reinvent the wheel. It's not something the government can do, or do well, in a way, because they won't be able to keep up with all of these things. This is a very fast space. It's very, very fast. So I think that, in a sense, they shouldn't do it because they can't keep up.

And they have proven it practically every time. And I don't think that even imposing a single thing would solve it. I think that in the end, uh, you know, what Ethereum and all these other systems allow, particularly, and most importantly, is the democratization of access to build on these things access to build on these things , because that's the difference that distinguishes fintech from someone starting a DEX right now on Ethereum. Some kid in his basement who's about 15 years old and doesn't know anything can start a DEX on Ethereum. Now can start a DEX on Ethereum.

Now , that's very dangerous and terrifying, but they can, and they will, and they have done it. And there's an interesting philosophical aspect to that because it's the access to make that possible that makes all of this interesting. Otherwise, if you restrict access, which governments are really, really good at. They're good at restricting access to things, so basically we shouldn't do any of this because most of these people wouldn't be here if the government just told them they couldn't do this. So I think, uh, we have a window of time before a lot of things get really lot of things get really , really bad, and I feel like right now , in a way, it's proving that this access was worth it for humans to take advantage of.

So I think that might answer your question. Just a quick thought, if you'll allow me, I agree with both of your points, uh, regarding government regulation, which government? Ethereum is not American government? Ethereum is not American . Ethereum is not European.

Ethereum is not Chinese. That is, this is something new and we don't have an established government or meta-government that can, even theoretically, regulate this. So I think the answer to your question is no. Just to clarify, what I'm talking about is less about regulating Ethereum and more about implementing regulations that, uh, make building on something like Ethereum more attractive. Hmm, right, or the...

the power of regulation...the question I'm asking is: What is the...what is the power of regulation to, uh, help keep things open, essentially, uh? But, but Frankie, I wanted to come back to you. So, at the beginning, at the very start of the conversation, you talked about that phenomenon of web two platforms like Facebook, that moment when you realize and say, "Oh no, I don't own this, I can't take it with me."

And that, that made me want to ask you, to what extent are you involved in creating, uh, decentralized alternatives to what we already use now, right? Like Facebook, but on the blockchain, as opposed to using this technology to devise things we haven't even imagined yet. There are definitely things being built on or using Ethereum and other protocols now that are supposed to replace Facebook, but I don't think we're ready for that yet. I think if we really want to address those systems, we have to go step by step, you know, and we have to start with the smallest things, achieve them, and make them universally understood. And personally I would love to see, and what I'm excited about for next year, if not the next few years, is getting rid of OAUTH.

I think that before we can even address things like Twitter, Facebook, and true data and identity ownership, we need to eliminate this concept of someone else giving me access to my identity so that I can access other sites. I mean , every time we go somewhere and it just pops up saying " somewhere and it just pops up saying " log in with Facebook". This simple act is essentially creating and composing an identity that is not necessarily yours. It has your name and your face, but it's not yours. It belongs to someone else.

But isn't that something that doesn't really require...this isn't a criticism, but that doesn't require interacting with the blockchain at all? I mean, no, of course not. It does not require interacting with the blockchain. But what Ethereum has done, and what MetaMask has done, is enable people to use local keys to sign messages and prove their identity without having to rely on others, maintaining ownership of themselves, right?

And having a localized identity and some of these small details, these small focal points in Ethereum are huge, they're going to change, and they're just small things, we change small things and everything filters through, small things and everything filters through, right? The big question I have about that, uh, is and this is we only have like two minutes, by the way, just so you know who solves two or three. Yes. Yes. Okay.

Um, do you see any way to get to a place where that becomes ubiquitous and yet people don't...we don't expect everyone to be custodians of their, uh, their private keys or their, um, like, without any recourse if they lose those things. You know, I want, I think we'll get to a point where research will put us in a place where everyone can be custodians of their own private keys. In fact, I would prefer to see that, and I think it's a failure on our part if the average person can't do that. That's a user experience flaw, you know, and I mean, if you took some of what we're building now and showed it to any normal web 2 designer, they'd laugh at what we're doing.

We need to create better user experiences and better education so that it becomes common knowledge that you can be the custodian of your own keys. Yes, those are problems that are very solvable. It's just that there hasn't been much of an incentive to solve it yet, uh, until now. But many projects, especially wallet projects and the like, are trying to solve it. But that can actually be addressed quite easily.

Things like multisig are being very underutilized in the space and actually address that very, very well, where you lose several factors and can still recover all your keys. Okay then, Lane, last question and then I think they're going to cut us off. Um, then I think they're going to cut us off. Um, how will you know, um, in 3 years if this is succeeding or failing this is succeeding or failing ? Decentralization.

Yes, that's a difficult question. Okay, so how do we know in three years whether decentralization is succeeding or failing? I think my answer would revolve around user agency, right? I would like to see the average user of the average app exercising more agency, and that could take several forms. It could be managing my keys.

It could be managing the keys for my community, my family, or my friends, managing data. It could mean being more aware of which apps we use and how we use them. Um, making small changes to open source applications. That's a short answer. Brilliant.

Very good. Thanks, guys. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.