Decentralising Economies and Funding the Commons

Transcript

okay welcome back my name is Kelsey and for this panel I get to introduce myself as long as some distinguished colleagues and guests here so I'd like to welcome Michael Fay the co-founder of give directly Vitalik Bou Turan founder of aetherium needs no introduction and Althea Allen and we're here to talk about decentralizing economies and funding the commons so for a bit of context Michael may be the newer face here and give directly is a large not-for-profit that specializes in direct cash transfers so one of their main pilots that they're running is a 12-year universal basic income pilot in Kenya this is one of the most ambitious

ubi experiments in history gifter actually is making cash transfers to more than 26,000 people in 200 villages in Kenya with about 6,000 of these people receiving a long-term basic income for 12 years and with payments of point seventy five cents per day or 50 percent of typical adult income in rural Kenya where the trial is located so these amounts are very significant to recipients this is different from the approach in government cash transfer programs which aim for income transfers which are small supplements to income whereas give directly standard program aims for wealth transfers large one-off transfers that hopefully give people the

flexibility to make large purchases and investments and so the framing of this conversation comes out of some activities from over a year ago and you may or may not have seen a public blog called stateless payments for stateless people so there was some alignment in vision and direction I guess between different different parties and different people to bring about donation to give directly and an ongoing conversation in this space so I'd love to kick it to you Michael maybe to explain a little bit about why give directly got started on universal basic income yeah absolutely

thank you everyone there are a lot of new faces here so it's exciting to be part of the etherium community which very generous indirect giving and I think there's been a lot of shared philosophy over the last few years so give directly at its simplest let's donors and individuals send money to the extreme poor now there's a lot of operational complexity which I'm sure we'll get into on what that means and but I think there's a much bigger objective which is really to reshape a sector that has largely been dominated by intermediaries so a donor gives to an organization that organization or government may make a decision on behalf of the poor of what they get and what they need and what give directly allows is their flipping of that narrative and

saying what have we democratized and gave the resources directly to the recipient and let them made the decision and not us excellent and lt you were involved in the crafting of that blog post that went out what was some of the themes that you saw around give people direct cash rather than conditional batches and the cryptocurrency a blockchain space so I think that in the cryptocurrency space we are very interested in sovereignty and in sort of free movement of funds and the freedom of individuals to do with their funds what they choose

so to me there's a lot of alignment there with the idea of giving people money and then walking away and leaving it to them to know what's best for them and make the choices with it that they think are best and not trying to dictate or sort of prescribe the correct way to use the resources that they have available to them so I think we found a lot of alignment when we first met with you guys and then started to think about some ways that maybe block chains and like the etherium community could contribute to doing those things maybe more efficiently maybe reaching more people and maybe

thinking of new innovative ways of using like we like to imagine new kinds of money and new ways of using money and new ways of exchanging value and even new definitions of what value is so I think there's a lot of freedom here to kind of explore all of those questions in the real world and also I like I really appreciate the the long term like research-based aspect of give directly specifically because there's a lot of data there that you know it's very applicable to these questions that we've been thinking about as well and so we haven't necessarily nailed down what it

means for us to like work together or interact but I'm like looking forward to continuing with that because I think there's a lot here that's just potentially symbiotic and but I like what first interested you about direct cash transfers as a mode of giving you know I had been following the rationalist space and things like her was wrong in Celeste waster codex and kind of friends and as one of my interests I'm in addition to crypto and one of the kind of things that's adjacent to this camp is this concept of effective altruism that says like let's try to really take the same kind of spread proper systemic effort at

figuring out what is the most efficient way to use our resources to help people and let's put the same rigor into it that you'd expect say a company to put in to maximizing profits and this movement psyche has some recommendations about things that it thinks are that people inside of the movement tend to think are very good to funds that we don't focus on enough so actually against malaria foundation tends to be rated very highly and surprisingly no despite its simplicity give directors often write up on those lists as well so that's how I and I found out about it for the first time and I thought you know the idea seems really interesting it's seems like it's

a great way to kind of help people and help them by sort of empowering them to then just make their own their own decisions and with there's more even more resources to help them and that's just seemed like something that was worth giving money to us so I gave I give directly some money and then we met last year in San Francisco and we've been talking more and more since then and Michael what lead give directly to accept cryptocurrency donations in the first place oh gosh I think it just makes a lot of sense and I think the reality is a lot of our donors are people that are kind of willing to break

down walls and not take knows and be a bit more innovative and the more forward-leaning we can be on those things the better and I think we have the luxury in many ways we're a new organization we launched publicly in 2011 to take some of those chances that other people can and show other organization what's possible one of those things is doing crypto a lot of it is how we run our cash programs the fact that we do cash and so on so it made a lot of sense it's been great for us the crypto community has been really supportive across the board um so yeah actually in terms of practicality if you look on the give directly website you'll see the address just really nicely pasted if there's front-end people react

devs people that like doing payment gateways wallets or anyone that's interested in improving the payments process for donations I'm sure that is a lucrative problem to solve as well so you seem to have quite a strong risk appetite some of the places that you work is Kenya Rwanda and Uganda what are the specific challenges that you get confronted with and what's the actual process so people here that might not be familiar with direct cash transfers yeah you go through so it's worth going back about eight years so when we started give directly the first country we went to was Kenya so this was 2008 before we actually launched publicly and the

reason for that was Kenya at that time was the only country with mobile money so mobile money is we all use venmo but mobile money was truly revolutionary for a population that really did not have access to any other financial service there weren't local banks they were out of the financial system for all intensive purposes and now for the first time with a feature phone in the SIM card they can receive digital money and that's where we started it was an opportunity and we started in Kenya Kenya was just coming out of the election there was a lot of violence I went personally we would get people's phone numbers and we'd send them digital money at that time cash was considered crazy people would say well aren't

people going to just spend it on alcohol how could you possibly be doing this and the reality is the cash narrative has evolved over time I think they're now well over 150 credible papers on the impact of cash so it's probably more research than any other intervention the narrative has shifted a bit and the narrative that you hear more often is well cash just probably is impossible there and there are two reasons people give one is that the market is not ready so well what would people buy I think the stories aren't filled what would they possibly buy and the second is there is no financial system how are you possibly going to get them the money and if there's anything we've learned and I come back to the specific question is

markets respond so you go to a market center that's pretty empty you give a lot of people cash and all of a sudden people start selling things so what we've been doing over the last eight years or so is trying to push the envelope and get rid of the excuses that you'll often hear so when people say oh it's not possible sure Kenya had mobile money but let's try somewhere harder so now we're working some of the hardest places at the Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia I'm I can go into Liberia in more detail but just to give you a sense Liberia does not print its own currency Liberia literally imports physical bills and just a few months back seven containers of physical bills went missing at the port they're still looking for it I think we'll go into that story but that's the level of the

financial system development you don't really have a dense mobile money Network so it's a place that is really open to being a little bit more creative on how you solve this and we face two challenges one is how do you get money to individuals so it's called last-mile payments the reality is even if you give digital money for the most part people will try to cash out too physical money almost immediately is that because there's no trust in the kind of new system that you've given someone so yeah I think there are lots of reasons out there I think and it depends on the country I think in some countries it's very rational it's one of the things that get the extreme poor are

extremely smart and they're extremely rational so if the fee structure is such that withdrawing money and spending it in small increments is more effective or cheaper than just transacting directly they're going to do that I'm certainly some of that there's also certainly a trust element of this may not be here tomorrow digitally this is absolutely a trust piece and the other thing we deal with is identity which is you go to a village you try to enroll people but you're giving money so there's every incentive to try to cheat so maybe a friend or a cousin from another village comes and squats in your kitchen and you pretend like there are two people there so how do you actually deal with the identity issue and the potential for fraud I'm gonna stay on this around I guess

practical applications of blockchain and cryptocurrency to this space what's the exact process at the moment for registration of people whether that's is it would it be a kyc depending on the jurisdiction and then people have to sign up with a national ID or generate and I did I'll skip the whole flow of fund so we have to get money from u.s. bank account into Liberian bank accounts that's its own process and then it's there so we need to do a few things the first thing we need to do is enroll people in the program so what we will do is we will have people on the ground that census a regent first so you count the number of houses number of people who they are and so on based on that you

will enroll people based on meeting some criteria and that specific criteria may vary per country but we have shifted to a model where we basically enroll everybody within and we go house-to-house digitally collect the data and so on we will then send another team to go back and collect the same data and verify it is it the same person and what no as part of this we will enroll them in mobile money now to enroll in mobile money and stick with the Liberia case you need some form of identification the lowest form of identification is literally a letter I think it's a letter from the village chief a lot of people will be illiterate so will be signed by thumb stamp your

fingerprint from both them that is enough to get them a mobile money account which is a SIM card and a phone which we will provide them as part of the cash transfer they basically get less money in order to get the phone if they want it we will then from New York or London process the payments digitally to the mobile in the operator there are some steps in between so we actually check that the name of the person on the account is the same as we have now that itself is its own challenge an example women in Liberia will give a different name based on whether or not and the husband is present so they use the husband's name when he's present and won't if he's not I'm so you may get multiple names from the same person

across different stages and then have them enrolled in the mobile money provider as a different name um so when you do your name verification you're like this looks like fraud um so that's one of the problems we deal we send out the money in Liberia we were worried peace ever and said well there's no mobile money agent density so they're not gonna have and they're not gonna have the liquidity to catch people out so what we started doing is actually organizing cash out days where we coordinate with the Mobile Money operator to get money physical money - cash people out that day now that seems easy that's not easy because there's no physical currency so they may need to go to the bank and in one case they went to the bank the bank did not have enough physical currency so the bank had to go

to the central bank to literally get the physical currency to give us to do a cash out date now they said okay let's push this envelope everyone has told us that there's no way we can just send the money and let them get it themselves we did it and it turns out that most people without us even organizing the cash out they figured out how to get cash themselves before and the agents manage their own liquidity they didn't need to go to the central bank so that's just a taste of what a distribution looks like but there's a lot of complexity in there definitely a lot of complexity definitely coordination challenges not exactly frictionless and maybe some need for some help on the supply chain to the to the shipping port there in Liberia what other applications have

have you both been aware of a blockchain or cryptocurrency or token economic models in this space so if like by the space we're talking about just providing infrastructure and tools to people that don't have it right now I think in Virgil mentioned finding insurance as being a potential in parametric insurance is being a potentially really interesting application and and they have these pilots in Puerto Rico and Sri Lanka and so it seems like they're you know actually going to people and they're in the kinds of voices that would actually get a lot of benefit from it so seeing how those kind of pilots and work and seeing if that model can be

expanded more could be really interesting yeah and I think it seems like there's quite a bit of appetite at the moment within their not-for-profit and the humanitarian space as well because it's very international and very ton of time sensitive around the movement of cash and the coordination in response to different challenges Vitalik I wanted to refer to a recent paper that came out in December last year called liberal radicalism that you co-wrote with a couple of others and I think the frame for that is around funding the commons and how you distribute value and/or resources to to the collective

good do you want to explain a little bit more about that and how it applies so the purpose of the mechanism is essentially to kind of compensate for the tragedy of the commons issue is that you get when you have a groups of people that are trying to donate so to like fine some public good so like for example if there's 10,000 people that all want some park to exist then each one of them could donate some money but the amount of benefit that they get themselves as it may be one over ten thousand of the benefit that goes to the entire community and so they are you know maybe each individual may well end up decides to just donate nothing even though when you look at it from the perspective of

the community as a whole and if everyone protected their money in what would be the right decision like everyone wants to and a free ride so the way that this mechanism works is basically for me kind of high-level point of view you let keep and just let people and donate money to kind of charities and then for each charity he would look at how much money I'm each person gave and then and if in a certain mathematical sense like the easiest way to describe it is you use the amount of money they donate to kind of estimate how much they care about that public or existing and then you kind of sum all those numbers up and you ask the question well if there existed a

kind of virtual sort of single person that is kind of the entire community acting as one with who cared about this public good as much as all these individuals put together how much money would they be willing to donate now because you don't have these in within one person you would not have these free rider collective action problems and that number would be much bigger than the amount of money the people actually donated and so if you have some central funding source that's willing to provide extra money then that would just provide the difference so the actual formula is basically you take every one of the amount that everyone's donated you're going to square root the amount that everyone's donated individually then you take the sum of the square roots and you

square that result and that's the total the project should get and then the Agana subsidy is just that big amount - just the sum of what everyone donated so I think in even GLAAD who thinks that this is something that could be and have even more empowering to communities than a basic income would be because it's like it's not just giving the money it's also giving them this ability to coordinate to create projects that potentially would not even exist I mean if they had to figure it out on their own even if they kind of each individual we had more financial resources so it's just it's another example of something that could be kind

of potentially really interesting to try out in small communities I think it's been coined quadratic giving because I chase the quadratic voting mechanisms and kind of extends it to this space mm-hmm what's one of the interesting use cases for so this has already been used by get coin this is this grant making kind of group that's been trying to fund Imperium projects through grants and they did one round of this where there was a $25,000 of and if subsidy money and people got the opportunity did it's only a small finds the projects then the based on this formula the subsidy was kind of proportionally distributed and

it ended up funding something like a dozen different projects and at least like from my point of view the results looked really reasonable like the things that got funded though seems to be a things that and we think I personally expect and would say are things that should get funded and things that the community in general seems to think should get funded so at least the first one you know seems to work pretty well and now there is a second run with fifty thousand dollars of subsidy money happening so this is I think being viewed as kind of one of the mechanism possible mechanisms for how to decentralize funding of public goods

inside the etherium ecosystem I mean through 2lc out why do you think that decentralized finance is important and what do you think that some of the trade-offs of moving that way are or Vitalik or Michael whoever would like to jump in as well so I think I think that it's important for many of the same reasons that others do sort of moving or removing centers of power making it more difficult to either exploit or like change the way that the system works for your own gain if you just happen to have a lot of a lot of

money or resources or power and also making it possible for communities and just sort of globally for people to have input on how the systems are built that they're going to use so it's possible although not a given that these systems can be less prescriptive and more sort of customizable by the people who are actually using them because like I think but like a lot of the communities that you're talking about I could never possibly sort of understand either the challenges or just the mindset I think they're like cultural differences and differences and like the resources that are available

that I just will not think of and so for me to like sit in Australia and decide what people in Kenya need I will always get it wrong and maybe I can make my best guess and I think that this is kind of how it is working how it's going to work is we make something we're like how about this thing and then leave it open I think this is the importance of open source and like decentralized creation is that it's open for people to sort of take it and run with it and this was the point that Stewart Brand made and I think that you're kind of getting at this as well people are very resourceful so if you provide them with the tools to

like create the systems that will serve them better they will take that and they will run with it so I think that's what's really cool about decentralized finance at this point one of the major and obvious drawbacks is that it's not very convenient and it's not really very widespread in terms of like where it's even legal to do it or where people understand it or you know where the the developer resources are that stuff is all still pretty localized and and really pretty centralized in terms of like the the influence on how these systems are developing still arrests with like quite a small number of people and I think

that there's also a real danger that anytime that you introduce new technology that people will take the opportunity to like either exploit or like spy on the recipients of that who need what it has to offer but don't have a lot of power to sort of negotiate for themselves the trade-offs that they're willing to make and so I think that there need to be people who are sort of champions for giving not becoming something that is exploitative or like having things in a closed-loop system where like this platform will help you now but now you're stuck with it I think those are a couple of the things that

like worry me most and I mean I'm I'm curious Michael what you think as far as like these things potentially becoming like data mining or surveillance opportunities for maybe less well-meaning people is that like a danger that you see or is it something that you see happening no yet I think we try to be really conscious about asking recipients even if we're going to use a picture publish a story get very explicit consent and the thing that gives me confidence that we're doing a decent job of that is that a lot of people say no which is probably the best indicator that you've done it all right but I think it's a problem I think a lot of the problem and and the Rayleigh's a

lot of people are very willing to kind of share and they want to be helpful so much of the problem is a resource problem for them at this point and I think you said it really well but we think of this as the if you look at the aid budget the global aid budget and this is not private philanthropy which is more but we're talking about about 130 billion dollars a year or so and that's just remarkably centralized and the way we talk about it is our money like it's our what if we changed that and said no that's not our money that's the recipients money we're gonna distribute that magically to all recipients and maybe there's some things that we tax them for to provide a public good or something else but let's not

treat it like ours and the number that just has stuck with me is if you look at the last 30 years or so international aid has been increasing so now it's about 130 billion the cost the poverty gap has been falling and that's just arithmetic so if someone is living at a ninety cents a day and the poverty line is a dollar ninety their poverty gap is a dollar so you just take the summation of that globally and that's probably in the sixty to seventy billion range right now so we spend about twice of that each year on international aid now we can't magically yet hopefully someday but we can't magically just drop that money on the extreme poor but if we could you could eliminate poverty

tomorrow and that's just really profound and motivating to me as a reframe of like our resources versus the poor so there are enough resources the poor have we've now taken and we're doing things with it are we doing enough good to justify making those decisions ourselves as donors as opposed to giving them to the poor talak did you have something to add okay so I'm hearing it's obviously very important to think about the design space in terms of consequences and unintended consequences especially if we're talking about how blockchain and

cryptocurrency applies as well and even with mobile money providers you can map transactions to users and gain quite a lot of understanding of the user behavior but there's also questions about where is the data and how is that stored and and how people registered if you could so actually there was a report that came out at the start of the year called DLT and blockchain in the humanitarian sector and that had some interesting observations towards the end around if you could pre-register people or if you could waive registration requirements in response to crisis and I know that disaster relief is an area that give

directly has started to think about and you might have done some things in response to Hurricane Harvey what do you imagine the kind of most efficient methods of that could look like yes I think that would be really exciting I think there are two parts one is identifying the people that you'll ultimately want to give resources to I think you can get to a place we're not there yet where you can do it completely remotely and there are various ideas on how you might do it and the second this could be a smart contract it's just an automatic distribution of money if there's an event and the event could be a big event like a earthquake or a hurricane but it could also be like localized droughts or something else

that triggers these payments to individuals it would be cheaper it would be quicker and it would be arguably better from a customer perspective in terms of reliability we will open up to questions in just a moment if you have a question just to say someone running a microphone around the whole room I just invite you to maybe like a line up on the left of the stage and we'll come down and ask in a moment if you do one more thing I wanted to throw out there is it has your work on direct cash transfers and universal basic income made a difference - I guess policy agendas or the aid and development sector yeah we hope so I think the

conversation has changed a lot since we got started now we're starting to do projects with governments and the US government did something pretty interesting which is actually evaluate one of their standard nutrition interventions in Rwanda against cash so the question is let's spend money on our traditional intervention and measure what happens per dollar and let's spend it on cash and measure what happens per dollar and that gets at this concept that cash should be a lower floor or benchmark for the sector right which is proved we should the burden of proof should be on us the donor that we're doing more good with a dollar than the recipient because we're taking that choice away so we should need to justify that it's actually worth

it one thing I did want to say that I think would be a pretty neat idea for crypto at some point is there's been or there it will come out soon but work on the impact of cash transfers on people that did not get the cash transfers so externalities and from this paper which is the most systemic look at it it looks quite positive both in terms of income of surrounding businesses but also on kind of well-being now that's amazing now what I would really love to see is how the actual cash moves and if you could trace a dollar through the system of how it's moving out from that kind of center of where you've distributed and to the surrounding economies over time

yeah very interesting around the spillover effects don't be shy about coming down the front is there anyone that has a question nothing at all hand up can I invite you to come down I'll come down stand with you I Thank You panel i'm jeong chorim i work for the blockchain center in melbourne I also represent as an ambassador for the blockchain philanthropy foundation lace them up so one of the things that we're trying to do is connect NGOs not-for-profits we corporates to to show how the impact and optimization of blockchain towards their

systems do you find that they are very embracing of this in the NGO sector and not-for-profit or do you feel they're still way behind with it in terms of blockchain or cash poor chain itself you may have seen more than me I think I don't know enough to speak broadly I think people are open it seems like an exciting space but mapping it to specific needs or probably still have some room to cover I think there's a limited understanding of what the potential is for blockchain in the space yeah I'd encourage you to have a look at

our world food programs building blocks initiative as well they've been doing some things on a POA etherium chain which parodies spun up for a couple years now and I believe they're rolling that up yeah there's definitely traction hello there yeah hi Ellie Rennie from RMIT University you mentioned it briefly but I was interested in this idea of how you might use these systems for public goods for say infrastructure or something

where people are not necessarily once they get the cash going to coordinate themselves to build that shared good or need well this is like one good example of where quadratic funding might actually kind of help a lot and basically because that's a way of giving money to projects that's kind of designs to target things that lots of people wants to exist and there lots of people were willing to sacrifice some amount of money to see exists but it and if use as this extra pool of money to kind of help the project along so I mean it's like the way that I would expect to see a

work is gonna for anything big and stuff big and substantive like some some large and well maintained Road like you could still imagine an organization maintaining it and the organization could receive funding from this kind this kind of pool with an individual's good as well minutes though that said this is all still kind of theoretical and it's just something that I wants to see tested in real life I should say cat cash does not solve everything cash does not build roads it does not discover vaccines it does not solve the public good problem I think one thing I'd be pretty interested to think about is there's certainly coordination challenges at the village level and you'll see some of them get solved so

you'll see people pull their money to kind of build a little road or dig oh well together but without capital they can't even begin to think they can't contribute to the public good in the first place combining something like this which to make coordination easier with the additional capital could be really interesting all right any question I'm I find it really fascinating the idea that we can give and then we can sort of see the effects of the money in society using digital cash where we can see it's sort of like filtering down through the communities well it kind of scares me about this idea is is that if you were to come to America for example no one would let you have that sort of visibility on their

privacy and is there an aspect to this giving that's a little bit exploitative in the nature of certainly we may be giving people money that doesn't prove their lives but certainly the the data about how people use money and how it spreads through their society can be extremely valuable down there down the line so one of the things I was wondering is is there any sort of effort going into understanding how we can protect people's privacy and whether or not there's any externalities that may come from knowing this data about how the society spends money once we give it to them and and what sort of like efforts are being made towards the sort of protection of these communities because in a way we're it feels a little bit like experimentation on them even if

there is a net positive outcome yes two parts the comment what is the privacy and what is the experimentation piece I think the privacy I should be clear there's no private data in the evaluations and they're randomized evaluations that could be used to identify or what not and these are the control group a treatment group you look at the differences and that's what gets reported in their reports and you'll see those evaluations there's a cache program in New York City there are there is there many kind of social kind of randomizations that happen in the US as well I happen to think that that experimentation is a good thing and I

think it's less risky than it may seem at first blush which is we don't have enough money to give to everybody in Kenya a cash transfer I would love to have that be the case but we just don't which means that at some level we need to choose whom who gets and who doesn't get what we're doing the fact that some villages get and some don't get I'm all we're doing it is more randomly or systematically than we would otherwise which lets us learn a bit more and say ok those communities didn't get these got let's look at the systemic differences across the two I think the learning is probably worth it I think the other idea of we just don't know what impact things have have led us down to in Juris paths so I'm an

economist by background then when I did my PhD a while ago now it's kind of early 2000s we were first starting to evaluate what worked and didn't work so this is decades after we've been doing stuff and what turned out to be the case is a lot of things we assumed worked didn't so we had poured billions of dollars into programs that really had no impact on people so the chance to make those programs more effective is worth it yeah and I would just say like the international community development space has been very broken and built on a lot of assumptions and a lack of evidence for many decades or perverse incentives and then at the moment you know there's massive mobile money

networks all across developing regions for example Southeast Asia and no one's asking private companies questions around how they're handling privacy and data but you know depending on the CRM it could be the huawei database which some of them actually using so to that question sure and the final audience question so form this sorry it's just emerging in my brain I think like give directly has shown itself to be particularly open to experimentation but I'm I'm curious what is sort of your

threshold for like the level of doneness of a new system or new technology because we're talking about like let's throw a blockchain in there but I don't know that there's anything that's ready enough to like do this experiment in a way that isn't potentially harmful or that doesn't just sort of cause chaos instead of giving us useful information so I mean do you have any thoughts on that yeah you asked all the tough questions so I think it's it's a balancing act and I don't think you want to be extreme and say we will not do things that may have some unknown unintended consequence is everything could potentially fall into

that bucket when we started give directly we actually initially got rejected for research we said like giving money to poor people that could be really bad it could be it's not but it could be I think we don't want to people extreme risk and with to be really sensitive so one thing that has come up is why not give just instead of Fiat and instead of digital instead of a stable and just give a cryptocurrency to recipients I think the biggest risk there right now is volatility which is it is one thing for me to have go up and down if that is what I'm depending on to feed my family and I think it's worth $100 and I go to

cash it out and it's worth 10 that could be really meaningful and the difference between life and death and that's not a risk that we'd be willing to take right now or we'd offset it and say we'll give you that it may be risky but we're also giving you this which will be $100 where you could make the case that it is pretty clearly a net positive I think of key management as another one that like you know if you tell me here's $50 if you lose this key your $50 is gone I'm like shucks I lost my key but if that happens to somebody for whom $50 is you know half a year's income that's not okay that's not an acceptable risk and so that's a particularly difficult

one to deal with that brings us to time for this conversation thank you so much for all of your inputs and insights as well and thank you to everyone that asked questions there's a few hands still so if you want to hang around now for a moment happy to take a couple more questions on the floor but if we could thank the panelists and now everyone has a half an hour break after this [Applause]