Yuval Rooz

And in special situation, I'm even allowed to share that information with others.

Anonymity is slightly different, which is nobody gets to see the information.

And again, for us, don't take this as me saying anonymity bad, privacy good.

It's again, it's a design decision that we said, if I want XYZ buy-side firm to start managing their equity portfolio, their fixed income portfolio on Canton, privacy, not anonymity, is critical.

If I want JP Morgan...

To do payments on Canton, privacy, critical anonymity, not going to work.

That's, again, a design decision we can be disagreed on, but that's kind of one of them.

The second thing, and I think this is, you know, maybe where we're going to start becoming a bit more controversial, but hopefully not.

is we believe that the laws of physics do not agree that you can run all of the world financial services on a single ledger.

That's our view.

I'm happy to have conversations, and what I mean by that is when you think about Ethereum, Solana, and some of these other ledgers, effectively all transactions go through a single consensus mechanism.

And as a result of that, it really forces the design to do a few things.

First of all, take a lot of the activity off-chain because there's a lot of activity that why would I run it through the most expensive database in the world?

And by the way, when I say that, this is not an insult.

It's a very expensive database because it gives you very unique features that are worth paying for those transactions.

But that means that a lot of transactions are not, they don't live to that level of importance.

And therefore, let's do a lot of things off chain, which to me is a bad outcome as a result of that because of what we're trying to do.

That's one thing.

And then second of all,

The reason that it's not good is because it will eventually create what, in my opinion, happened in Ethereum.