Yuval Rooz

Immutability is a social construct.

Yeah, I agree that that's true.

But as long as, Ryan, as you stick to the fact that it's a social contract and not a guaranteed, and that's kind of where I go back

to the design features that I don't think in today's world, a regulated institution, top tier regulated institution would be able to go to their regulator as of right now.

And maybe that will change in the future as of right now and be able to say, I'm choosing this chain because they have a very strong social contract.

I don't think that they would be able to convince a regular, we're going to put our books on records.

We're going to forget about TradFi off-chain books on record.

We're just going to put our books on record on that because they have a very, very, very strong social contract.

That's just a personal view that I have.

And I don't, again, and this is while agreeing with you about certain chains have a very strong social contract, but at the end of the day, it's not a technical design.

It's a social contract.

And that's the difference.

That's just the reality.

So when you even look at some of the announcement recently on native equity on chain, when you read the fine detail, you always still have to have an off-chain redundancy in case that social contract or something else breaks.

So our view, and this goes back to kind of where we were a while ago, is by wait a minute, anyway, you're taking risk on the issuer.

Anyway, you are exposing yourself to censorship or something that they can do to you.

then why not actually give a very strong technical guarantee that said issuer has full sovereignty and control over their ledger.

No third party can fork their ledger.

And by doing that, they can actually do everything on-chain, nothing off-chain, right?

So again, it's not trying to say, this is bad, this is good.