Yuval Rooz

We're just saying, hey, you've already put a lot of trust in the issuer.

Why wouldn't you just actually then give them also technical capabilities of them saying, great, I can actually have full sovereignty and control over my ledger.

And now I will let it interoperate or be composed on a fully permissionless infrastructure.

Maybe Ryan, I have a question for you, if you don't mind.

This is for you to ask me questions, but would you say that layer two that have a centralized sequencer is permissionless?

Is it public?

Is it private?

Is it open?

And have a centralized sequencer running by one company.

Yeah, so by the way, I 99.99% agree with what you said.

The only slight distinction is I don't think you give up property rights

I think what you're doing is you're giving up potentially short-term inconvenience that, again, Vitalik's approach is saying should never happen.

What I mean by that is if I hold something at the DTCC, it's legally mine.

I have full property rights over it.

But I am exposed to DTCC freezing it, doing something.

And if I think that they've done it in an illegal way,

I have all the rights in the world, unfortunately, though, to resolve it outside of on-chain.

That's my point.

So I haven't really gave up property rights, but I'm taking operational risks with respect to this asset.

I agree on that.