Safeguarding Digital Assets: Custody Challenges and Solutions

Transcript

Hello, hello, hello. Welcome to the second to last session of the day. We have a great people together here right now. Um, just this for the audience here that they're not familiar with your company and your team. Would you mind giving a quick intro on where you're uh where where you live or what you're working on, which company you came from, where you guys are where your mission is? Sure. So, how do I get started? I guess we're going this way. Yep. All right. Thanks for having me. I'm Ouriel. I'm CEO of Zengo. Zengo is a safe crypto wallet. It means that it's a wallet that you cannot lose, that cannot be hacked. If you know something about wallet, you know it means a lot.

Based out in Tel Aviv and we're servicing over a million users around the world. Excellent. Well, thanks for that. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Amy. I lead sales for Fireblocks here in APAC. Fireblocks provide, you know, secure digital asset infrastructure for over now 1,800 customers, only firms and institutions, which is probably where you and I really differs cuz they're really retail focused, whilst we're only service institutions. And our journey really started in servicing the crypto trading use cases, allowing them to connect with each other via the Fireblocks network. Subsequently, we've expanded upon, you know, retail product as well as working with banks, payments companies, and as well as corporates to help them on their web3 journey.

I guess I'm the last one. My name is Diogo Monica. I'm the co-founder and president of Anchorage Digital. We are on the other extreme ends of conservative. We're actually the first and only federally chartered bank in the United States of America. We are a qualified custodian and what we do is we work with the largest institutions, sovereign wealth funds, all the banks, and we provide custody, staking, governance, all of these services that they require from a regulated jurisdiction. Beautiful. I'm Francis. I'm the moderator for today. I am based out of Seoul, South Korea. I run Korea Blockchain Week with FactBlock. So, it's good to come out here in Singapore, get Asia together. And then first question of the session today is, as you know, we had a crazy year

coming remembering our time at Token last year. We had a lot of excitement. Only thing only bad thing happened was the Luna. However, however, there are more things that happened just to catch up in light of all the recent bankruptcies over the past year from Voyager, Celsius, FTX, uh how can custody solutions be adopted to provide legal protection to be used in the event of seizures? And then I just your thoughts on that and just just reminiscing of the past year and all these events. So, you're right. It It was a bad year.

Yeah. Uh but it was also a good year for learning what you should know. And uh what you should know is that it's not a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket. Uh it doesn't matter that the basket is custodial or non-custodial. You want to have a variety of solutions even if you are a a retail investor. And I think what people have learned during the past year is that security is a gamut of solution and is a variety of solutions. And you know, I think uh the problem is right now most I think the vast majority of crypto is custodied in custodial systems. So, that's also not a good idea. You want to have like something like more spread out. And historically non-custodial solutions have been secure enough and not safe enough and not usable enough. And I think this is

slowly changing and I think we're helping with that. And I think you know, the the market is maturing. So, that's the good news. And sometimes to mature and get to the next level, you need to go through accidents. And this is what happened in the past 12 months. And I think you know, the solutions that for example those guys are building here on the on my right are helping getting the market better structured, more secured. And on the self-custody side, you have new type of approaches for example built on MPC, multi-party computation, which is also leveling up the game. So, I think overall the market is getting into a good direction. but men, we are still far from the race. Woo.

Yeah, I would say the one thing we've learned in the last 12 months is it doesn't matter if you're a self-custody self-custody or or a third-party custodian, corporate governance is probably more important than whatever you choose to how you want to choose to hold your assets cuz ultimately what we really learned post Luna and subsequent event that has happened has been around people ultimately is the challenge that we're interacting with and as much as we love being decentralized, you have a corporate that is managing assets on behalf of their customers and this whether you are a licensed exchange or in some cases we've seen recently, if you're a licensed custodian in cases, that could still happen, right? So, I think where the industry is moving towards too is to say, well, to your

point, diversification, but also using technology to mitigate some of these risks. For example, we're seeing more now that exchanges are working really closely with the prop shops to figure out a non-custodial solution that allows them to keep some assets off the exchange whilst getting them liquidity. So, these type of conversations really transpired post the FTX event. I've been doing this stuff, you know, with Fireblocks for 3 and 1/2 years. 3 and 1/2 years ago when we first started bringing these concepts to exchanges, they were really not entertaining these, right? Now, I think they're all entertaining in some shapes or form, which is really encouraging to see.

Yeah, the market structure point is a great one. I think it's completely unnatural and it only happened in crypto that we have these vertically integrated exchanges that are custodians, they're the exchange, they're the market manipulation auditing, they're they're everything. They do settlement. They literally do everything. This doesn't exist in traditional finance. There's multi-party integrity, multiple entities collaborating with one another to make sure that there's no collusion. And so, I 100% agree that post all of these failures, there's definitely market structure shift and we're seeing it and we're participating in it. One other thing that I want to mention is that security is extremely important, but I do want to echo the point that a lot of these failures have been company failures, corporate government failures, you know, frauds, people investing customer's funds. There's very

little that your custodial or non-custodial platform can do against the CEO of the company investing the client's funds in something that they shouldn't, like Luna. So, that's obviously something that is hard to stop, which actually brings me to Yes, it has been a bad year in terms of like the sequence of events that have happened, but it's actually us specifically, we've benefited massively from it because what we've seen is we almost doubled on the first quarter around our deposits on the platform just the first quarter alone cuz there's a massive flight to safety. Last year, nobody asked me about bankruptcy remoteness. And this year, the first question out of the gate is like, "How are you bankruptcy remote?"

"How is the corporate governance?" "How does the BCP work?" And so, this is where it really helps that, you know, regulation is there and being a bank definitely helps with these things, but it's worth pointing out that it's security, it is governance, corporate governance, and regulation, and it is of course just general market structure that has been wrongly built from day one in crypto that is now moving to towards more traditional finance. To touch on your point, are there any frameworks and/or processes that got put in place to vet the human side of these errors that could be potentially detrimental?

Yes, 100% So, from a corporate governance and I think lots of us here do, there's these concepts of quorums and multi-party integrity. So, for example, in our case, no single individual human on the client side ever has authorization to withdraw funds unilaterally. And no single human on the Anchorage side ever has the ability of authorizing funds unilaterally. And that just stops you from simple collusion or simple absconding of funds happening. However, it does not stop from a company actually doing something wrong, like investing their assets incorrectly into something. And by the way, remember that some of these companies went down not necessarily because of the crypto side, but because they invested their dollars wrong. So, that there was the dollar side, the thing that pays salaries and allows you to not be insolvent, the

dollar side actually went wrong. And so, yes, there's lots of these platforms like Custodia provide these abilities to make sure that we have those controls and build those controls, but the dollar side also matters and that's one of the things that has been very weak. Yes, so I would say, I mean, obviously my expertise is really in the APAC region, so I'll draw some examples of some of the countries how they approach this, right? So, Singapore has taken the approach of managing people. Right, so they're like, "Well, I don't really care where your keys are stored, but I need the person who's in control to be located in the jurisdiction that you're regulated in, ultimately to protect their and investors as well as in the situation of bankruptcy." Versus Hong Kong has taken the approach of securing keys on premise. Meanwhile, if you look at another example, which is in

Thailand, they have daily reporting requirements, right? Which ultimately makes it a very difficult for fraudulent activity to happen cuz ultimately you can match against your liabilities as well as what you see on chain. And then in the example of Japan, for instance, there's definitely reporting requirements as well as segregation of funds and so on and so forth. So, each the countries I think in the major kind of jurisdictions have came out with different versions of segregation of duties, segregation of responsibility, backup recovery requirements, also as well as nuances associated with how they look to manage depending upon, you know, their experiences. Right, I think Hong Kong obviously historically have not had licensed entities on the exchange side, I mean, recently have rolled that out.

They have one side of the story versus Singapore have had some experience in the last few years regulating different entities and their approach, although similar, but actually very, very different in comes to the consequences. So, I'm going to try to give a different angle because on the non-custodial side, I think you you cannot think about regulatory framework or government framework because it doesn't exist, at least it doesn't exist yet. However, you know, trust and safety is a bit like love. There is no trust and safety, there is just like proof of trust and safety. And so, the question that you need to ask yourself is is the design of the system as it is built can be used in a way that is harmful to the user? And it so happens that if it's custodial, you know, by lack of

transparency at least, you cannot answer to that question very simply. In a non-custodial environment, basically the code tells you whether the system is safe to the user or not. And I think, you know, what is the proof of safety in that case? Well, you do several security audits, you open source your code, and you explain what you're doing as much as possible. You need to do that in a frequent way. So, I think the the the way you do not harm the user is by making sure that the design of your system cannot be used to harm the user. And if that's the case, then you are in good hands.

To zoom out a bit on a broader sense and trend, ever since, for example, FTX, self-custody has become a main theme. And I based on my research at least, that has been the main demand out there. And people are more interested in learning more of self-custody. From an institutional perspective and also from your perspective, how are you seeing that trend and where would you see it going? And then is there will there be a solution actually to accommodate the demand out there? What do you guys think?

Uh maybe can take a stab at it first. I think the trend that we've seen around the lack of trust to centralized kind of operators, right? And the exchange being an example of that, we've definitely seen retail folks are pulling more money off these platforms. I think previously, prior to FTX, people thought FTX would be the savings account. And that I think has definitely has happened. We can see obviously growth from your guys' platform, as well as you look at like Ledger and Trezor, these kind of retail solutions. Um a lot of individuals have really moved stuff off centralized platform into their own wallet. Now that being said, there are challenges, and that challenges applies to institutions as well. It's access, right? So, while you have self-custody solution, you might think it's really good and secure in a offline setup and so on and so forth, but what if you have

DeFi activity that requires you a nuanced level of control? And this is where I think when it comes to post-FTX events, this kind of off-exchange type of solution is really helpful for institutions to think about how they want to mitigate their counterparty risk. Another nuance I would also like to highlight when it comes to large institutions is like custodians in the digital asset world is not like Bank of New York Mellon, right? The balance sheet requirement is very nuanced, and at the end of the day, I would say what we've seen is a multi-kind of custodial, multi-provider approach where they find fit-for-purpose solutions based on what they're trying to accomplish. Let's say if I'm an institution I want to launch a index fund, and I only rebalance once a month, right? Your requirement is going

to be very different than a prop shop wants to trade, you know, a thousand times a day. And then as such, your custodial solution on the back of that wouldn't be reflecting to those specific use cases. And in those examples, you can choose custodial, you can choose non-custodial, and those things all play in a factor as well. So, let me just point out that So, in many cases, actually, what we see is the exact opposite for financial institutions. Retail, definitely pulling money off of exchanges, pulling assets off exchanges makes a lot of sense when you're burnt. You're actually going to do self-custody. But remember that in the United States specifically, there's a mandate by law that institutions use a qualified third-party qualified custodian. They can't do self-custody.

In fact, the trend line is further to the extreme. There's currently a ruling proposed by the SEC that actually says that funds, venture funds, crypto funds can't do any self-custody essentially. They cannot. They have to use all qualified third-party custodians. And so, that is actually the exact opposite of what we're proposing, which is retail is that yes, I'm going to hold my own keys, and institutions like, "No, no, no, I want to use reliable qualified custodians third party because self-custody for institution means that they have to have the competence to actually manage these private keys regardless of which tools they use and in many cases a lot of these losses that we've seen lately have actually been hacks and losses of self-custody solutions. And so it still requires competence for you to run your infrastructure in a correct manner. If

your infrastructure is hacked as as an institution, it doesn't really matter. If you're doing self-custody, then you have ownership of the assets. And so ultimately what we're seeing is the exact opposite on financial institutions of the with institutions with capital rely. I I I will say that I'm going to shoot myself a bullet in the foot that self-custody today is not mature enough both as an industry and technology to represent the majority of what needs to happen. So maybe one day we have a qualified self-custodian license. And and the reason is because the tech stack and the practices are not yet good enough. And we have 12 years of legacy and hacks to prove it.

That being said and I will say something that may sound a little bit provocative. I certainly hope it's changing because if it doesn't, if the future of crypto is custodial, then what are we doing here? We're just replicating finance 1.0 replacing dollars and euros and Singapore dollars with bits and zeros and ones. And so that's not the point. The point is to give control on chain with an economy that is distributed globally accessible to anyone. But the industry needs to mature and definitely today custodial systems are winning the race by far. And the the good news is that the self-custody side is maturing and I think it's maturing extremely fast. I wouldn't be surprised to see a reverse in the next 5

years. Mhm. So I think what's I remember like few years ago we had this conversation, right? If digital asset operated or industry developed in the same with traditional finance have developed, i.e. four custodian in the world holds for everybody, that's not very exciting for anybody in this room being involved. I think the more likely scenario is you can have like regional financial institutions looking to hold some sort of different digital asset depending on what the asset represents, right? I think we're talking very broadly speaking about Bitcoin, but there's other assets that could be built on top of a blockchain that have very different other properties as well. So, I think to, you know, my earlier what I mentioned around like use case, like what are you looking to hold? What are people trying to do with this? What kind of asset does it represent? And in some

cases in the US, people are arguing over is it so and is it a security and so forth. There's a lot of nuance that plays into ultimately what will happen and what custodial or non-custodial solution you will choose. And then thinking in terms of individuals controlling their own finances. And again, it depends which country you live in, right? In a place like Singapore, you know, the government knows your identity, they know your financial information, they have all the information you have. Whereas in the emerging countries where maybe the individuals feel quite distrust towards the centralized management of state information and storage, they may have a different approach and choose a a wallet solution that's more aligned to their own challenges that they're dealing with their society.

Another Another turn I want to touch base on is a regulation. As you know, it has been DC has been making a lot of noises. And I was wondering from your your for your it for your own firm, you guys are very global, you guys have offices everywhere. How are you guys keeping tap on how how to work with each regulator in each region? And how are you guys seeing the America leading that charge or not leading it going opposite way? Well, the the way that you do it is you have an army of lawyers and local and external. And then in the United States, you have lobbyists. And you do a lot of handshaking and you go to one side of the house, then you go to the other side of the house, and then you host dinners or you participate in dinners, then you

meet your senators, then you call them, and then you participate in fundraisers. I mean, that's that's how it's done. Whether you like it or not, it's just the market-based reality. Right now, there's a set of bills being proposed. A couple of them might actually pass the house, but there's no bipartisan support, so it is very unlikely that this year will have anything that actually will be approved and will even get to the president's desk. We're hoping that the stablecoin act or stablecoin bills next sometime next year will actually pass and that would already be fantastic. But the reality is that it's a very slow slow process. Uh one of the things I do have to mention is that a bill being proposed and not passing, you feel like it's a failure, but it's actually a success because the way in the United States that these things work

is that you actually need language that people are familiar with that actually explains what's happening. And so when a bill ultimately passes, it is not a new bill that was created. It is always a bill that is crafted from pieces of other bills that have failed cuz people have already went through the work of defining the frameworks, defining what's digital securities, digital commodities. So a lot of that work legwork has already been done. So we're not kind of like back to zero. Don't think about it as back to zero. Think about it as now we're actually like halfway there or more than halfway there because we already have a lot of the legal framework in the language and people are already used to it. The next time the senator see it and read it, they're already familiar with the concept, so it's a lot easier for them to get the

consensus. So I do want to pass on this thing which is when it gets denied invariably in Senate but passes the house, you shouldn't throw your hands up and it's like, "Okay, we're back to square one." No, this is actually the method to the madness of the United States law making. We're actually halfway there. Yeah, I I would say in in Asia for us, it's proactive engagement, right? We try to educate the regulators on the technology that our customers are utilizing Fireblocks to implement. We try to educate them on the risk associated with various different technology and ultimately trying to work with the regulator to enable them to define a set of a governance that is aligned and is best practice and protect against the attack vectors that they

want to protect their investors from. Um which, you know, to your point, I think law is always the biggest winner when it comes to digital asset industry, right? I really should have studied law instead. Um but on the flip side, I I I would say the regulators also are changing and competing with each other. And this might not be the case in a country like the United States, which is a homogeneous, but in APAC, there's clearly a I would say a goal between the key jurisdictions to become the new digital asset hub in a particular continent, right? And if you think about what's actually happening is driving, you know, innovation, driving more adoption, and also attracting more talent to the home country.

Whilst regulator, I think generally want to protect as a first basis, they also have the goal of innovation and, you know, fostering good innovation. And that, I think in APAC, we had the really luxury of these multiple regulators manage their own home country, whilst figuring out opportunities that they can either collaborate or creating opportunities that allow businesses to move or move to or expand upon that particular jurisdiction. And I would say right now, especially this year, there's been so much more exciting trends that's happened in APAC. And ultimately, a lot of businesses globally are really moving here as well to to even respond to that as well.

I think I'll just point out that we're also have a regulated entity here in Singapore. It's just a the MAS is a breath of fresh air compared to the United States regulators, cuz I have what, 20 different regulators in the United States, the state ones, the federal ones, the multiple federal ones, nobody agrees with each other. And here is actually one regulator, so it's actually pretty interesting. And one thing that we've seen in the past is that regulators worldwide just follow what the US does. But now we actually have MAS, we have MiCA in Europe. We actually have folks doing independent movement, which is kind of cool. So instead of waiting to see what the US does, obviously there's still countries like probably like Australia that are still waiting and seeing and many other countries waiting and seeing. So that's unfortunate because the US has to come

first. And also in the past has happened that laws get changed when the United States finally decides to act, so they can actually unify the laws and they have so much power that they export that. But so far we are seeing independent jurisdictions wanting to win this, which is actually pretty good. I I'm listening to these two guys and I'm jealous because in our in the other side of the world, in the world of non-custodial systems, there is no clear Sorry, there is no regulatory framework at all. And some say it's a good news because you can do whatever you want, but we know that it's not a good news also because this is how all the abuses happen. This is how all the poor coding and all the poor practices happen. And I give you two simple examples by lack of regulatory clarity how it can hurt a business in

the non-custodial space. You want to open a bank account. The first thing that they ask is what kind of business are you? All right, you're in crypto, are you regulated? The answer is no. Can you get regulated? The answer is no. So, we can't open a bank account. Second thing that you want to do as a business, you want to buy ads on Google, right? The first question Google ask you is you Are you in crypto? Do you have a license? You can't advertise on Google. So, there is a lot of brakes when you don't have that. So, it's it's a good news to have to not have a regulatory framework being in the modern world, the world we we live in. You know, sadly, this is a permit to do business. And you you need that permit if you really want to build to build a growing,

sustainable, predictable business. Eventually, I think we will get there. Sorry for disappointing some of you. I think it will happen. We're not there yet. Right now, it's missing. So, I actually think the difference between regulation Well, actually, I should say regulation financial services, right? Which in If you are a custodial solution, then you are offering a financial service to your net clients versus in the world that we both live in in a non-custodial world, we're technology, right? So, then actually, I think about it as like in our industry, probably need like an FDA equivalent that is guiding innovation and technology. They're experts in understanding technology advancements, which as regulators are experts understanding how to manage operational control. They don't really typically make specific requirements around

technology, right? They give you a lot of framework, they assess the risks of the technology, then they give you like insurance requirement, all of these things, but they don't actually go into the details of like you must secure your key this way, or you must go and use this type of MPC solutioning. So, they don't actually get into that detail. So I would say when it comes to our industry, I can see it happening already in some cases where a lot of the technology and I talk about smart contract as an example, right? Like who is governing smart contract offerings? At some point a a I think we call it a regulatory body or a technology auditing from the whatever you want to call them to be will have to come out and provide these guidances because an average Joe or even institutions to your point may

not have the technical know-how to assess what is what. So they're looking to some sort of centralized body that could be trusted to help them to verify all those things as well. Going back to our point about new processes and new framework that arose that that came out of all these human errors that happened over the past year. Is there any exciting new technology within the custodian space you guys are excited about? Anything you guys are looking forward to or anything you guys want to achieve in the in the tech on the tech side of things? Well well in terms of things that can go wrong it it show it shows that people are very bad with passwords.

Very very bad. For two decades we've learned it at a hard price. So I'm very bullish on technologies that are promoting passwordless authentication. Um we use it extensively. We've built a wallet that works without password in any way and you can recover all the time. And I think there are more and more systems doing and using that. Some are using liveness biometrics. Some are using hardware keys like you the keys. Some are using passkeys. But I'm very bullish about things where you don't ask from the user whether he's a retail user or a sophisticated user to deal with password because it's a really bad idea.

Yeah, so so on our end I will highlight three key piece of technology that have been developed, right? One when it comes to like off exchange settlement. Right now we're building in a web two version. I'll be super excited to see that contract be done in a smart contract cuz you can manage effectively collateral management using a smart contract, and that has implication around how you want to manage between two counterparties. And secondly, around settlement as well, right? Um and I use the word settlement in a non-regulatory term, but meaning if you want to send something to someone for DVP, or if you want to wait until atomic swaps, like those type of technology we're definitely seeing trading firms are looking at and encouraging us to help develop. The other piece I would say is probably the hottest trend at the moment, which is non-custodial wallets from a provider,

which is enabling brands and corporates to develop their own user experience. So you give them SDKs, you give them a stack. We have changed our MPC solution to allow them to roll that out to many of their users, and that's definitely a trend at the moment as well that we're seeing as we explore to other new use cases beyond holding Bitcoin, beyond trading, into, you know, the kind of non-financial use cases. I would say an area that we're definitely seeing a lot of growth is in the non-custodial wallet space, where we enable brands to build those out. Yeah, my view here is pretty interesting, which is we're actually just in many ways just relearning the same mistakes that we've learned from traditional finance for the past 200 years, because that's how things actually ended up. And a lot of these mistakes as we've described were just like just

traditional mistakes that have actually to a large extent been eliminated in traditional finance. It's very hard for you to see just funds being absconded and like collusion in traditional finance. So I think the biggest thing for us is well, it's market structure. It's something that we've already mentioned. It's like can we actually solve this at the market structure level? And exchanges are usually the source of most evil. I mean, it's just the the facts on hacks and on absconding funds and like criminal activity and fraud is just the they're the facts. And so the non-custodial exchanges finally are showing up as like as credible exchanges. One of the things that we're actually doing is we we are doing settlement for a non-custodial exchange called EDX that is backed by Citadel, that is backed by Fidelity. And before we didn't really

have exchanges that were backed by Citadel or Fidelity. We didn't really have these large institutions building non-custodial exchanges. Everybody was sort of looking at the vertically integrated model, and now they're finally realizing, "No, no, no, this is not something we want. So, we can still have qualified custodian settlements, but we are non-custodial here, and so the exchange is separate from the custodian, and thus there's no collusion between the two entities." So, that's actually not an exciting innovation, that's just us relearning the same mistakes that we've had for a long time traditional finance. I I always saw like people meme about institutions are coming, but I think looking back at since our post-Luna, post-FTX times, I think this has been where like where where people are relearning how to build things correctly, transparently. On that note, what can we do as an industry leaders to

increase transparency and also do things right going into the next cycle and next bull run? So, one one thing by the way is I wish for a lot of more post-mortems. There's lots of stuff bad happening, and it's very hard to introspect when they fail. Not just when they're happening, it's also would be great to actually just have post-mortems that are actually good. We're learning more from bankruptcy procedures and what's actually happened in court cases than we're learning from companies' mistakes publicly. And so, I wish that the industry was way better at post-mortems. When something goes horribly wrong, please let us all learn from somebody else's mistakes versus every single person or every single entity company relearning mistakes individually.

So, I would also make that statement and looking at traditional finance's mistakes, right? And I think a lot of times we talk about institutions are coming. This is discussion around like crypto industries are young, we don't know what we're doing, we need to be changed, and the institutions and the financial institutions know exactly what they're doing. And I think the nuance at the end of the day is the time horizon are very, very different. If you look at the industry that we've operated in, it's a speck of time compared to the way institutions traditional institutions have had to make those mistakes. It just so happened that in our world we're very vacuumed into the space, and we keep looking at the mistakes people have made, but actually if you span that out over 100 years, I would say a lot of the changes that we made today and the

mistake we made today are going to be very minute in the grand scheme of things. I think that's a point number one and point number two I would argue that things that encourage institutions to come in, right? And I think transparency is one, regulations the other and then ultimately using technology to solve human problems. And I think this is something that we always believed in. You can't fix people and if there's one thing history defeated itself, humans have always made the same mistake over and over again, right? Which means that you need to have technology or governance control which allows you to mitigate all of those human instincts, human error, human control elements of things and that's kind of what we've been spending a lot of our efforts on.

So one word, more more honesty. I think we are So honesty. And if you want you can add more. But what I mean by that is that I think there is an abuse of marketing claims versus clear explanation of what the trade-offs are when you are choosing a solution. No matter what that solution is. We all know and we've read it thousands of time on Twitter, not your keys, not your coins. This is a cool claim. The problem is that it comes with major trade-offs.

A hardware wallet is not necessarily the best solution or the gold standard. It comes with a heavy price in security if you don't know what you're doing. And I think when you want to present something, whether you are the operator of that solution or the ambassador of that solution, you want to be honest about the benefits and the trade-offs. And so I think this will be the most helpful to our industry. On that note, the biggest takeaway today for me at least is a keyword honesty and transparency. So all right, thanks everyone More honesty, more fun. Yes. I think let's write it in one word.

Thanks everyone for coming and then hope you enjoy the rest of your week in Singapore. Let's let's say exciting and have fun. Have a safe day.