How's it going Publius? I'm doing great, Mod. How are you? Things are alright. There have been a few discussions going on. I guess the discord across different channels. And they're mostly about now related topics, let's say. And that's, you know, beans are beans, seeds on what's what's around it. So going to start with a few of them.

And then, you know, we can maybe go back and forth if we find but all of these questions are related to each other. The first question or maybe the discussion on this one, but the biggest has brought up a few times, I believe is with us and the his in the government. And he or they have pointed out that you you know, some of the recent converts unprofitable it's explained mostly again because farmers value you know, the seeds that are given for it's which brings us back to the question or the discussion of does it make sense to equate LP and being seeds and then just purely rely on the price of being for arbitrage.

And that's what will make people convert. So maybe I can. Yeah, go ahead. I was going to say maybe I can also present the argument on the other side of retaining it. But if it if you want to answer that first and then come back up to other arguments. So from our perspective, neither the fact that or neither the idea that all deposits should have the same seeds or that the current seeds per BTV for assets on the deposit or white list is optimal.

Neither of those ideas seem true to us now. Would that said, there's a question of how can the seeds for really be improved both right now and how they how can they be improved over time and the there's been a lot of discussion on on that front at the moment. The nature of deposits is that the seeds per BTV is determined at the time of deposit and the contract doesn't support a variable seeds per BTV at the moment.

But that's something that can be implemented in the near future and has been generally mapped out and isn't isn't actively under development but is hopefully going to be developed in the not too distant future. And as there's more and more back end development happening on the salinity front, the the, the timeline for that to get implemented gets closer and closer.

And at that point, then the question becomes, what would a generalized stock, really a seed gauge system, look like to determine the seeds per BDB for a given deposited asset and that is an open question that perhaps we can talk about, although we don't have the most fully fleshed out thoughts at the moment, although happy to talk about what that might look like.

And then there's a separate question as to whether or not it makes sense to change as a one off the seeds to PDB ratio of given assets. And it's not the simplest development task because as we were saying before, the seeds for PDB are stored at the time of the deposit and therefore it's not it's non-trivial to just change the seeds per PDB on the deposit white list that would only affect future deposits.

There would need to be an update to all of the current deposits. So there's a non-zero amount of development work associated with that. And at least on this end, you know, I guess to return to what's the the main question is what type of effect can any of these changes be expected to have on peg maintenance? And what is the order of magnitude of meaning this or I don't know, meaningfulness, which is a word, but I don't know if it's the right word.

The impact on on being stocks, the ability to maintain the peg that that any given change would have relative to development work. And to be frank, not sure what the optimal seed's per PDB ratio is, particularly if it's going to remain static. And it would really be spitballing definitely as we started talking about this with I don't think it makes sense for them to be the same.

It probably could make sense to change the seeds per PDB at least of the unripe being three curve downward to change the convert incentives that Backus and others have highlighted multiple times. But don't think that at the margin, it's likely to be a particularly meaningful change, given that it would be a one off change which which would require a significant amount of development work and then leave being stuck in basically the same point where the same place where it turns out the seeds per PDB ratio is not really right or optimal.

So from our perspective, the goal is to continue to work on generalized solutions that are moving stock forward and don't just kind of tread water. So from that perspective, at least on this end, don't feel particularly inclined to to, to push for changing the seeds in a one off fashion and are more inclined to push for sooner rather than later.

Changing to a variable feed system, which once that's implemented, then it would be much easier to change the seeds per PDB in a one off fashion, and then shortly thereafter, or maybe at the same time roll out some sort of stage three decade system which could could do a much better job of allowing Beanstalk to measure based on the market and its desired allocation of seeds for per excuse me, its desired allocation of liquidity and its desired peg maintenance performance to alter the seeds per PDB around beans and other assets on the white list in a in a much more sophisticated or dynamic fashion.

So a little bit of a long answer here, but feel like there is no right answer. Right. Like maybe maybe that would be a super meaningful change and get rid of all the downside volatility in beans. To be frank, the history of Beanstalk is is ripe with weeks long or even longer than a month long period of price discovery on the downside where people are trying to look for the bottom and it's hard to it's hard to know how much a different seed per BTB ratio would really have affected that process the first time around, or any time for that matter.

But particularly don't feel like it's, at least from our perspective, what's what's transpired over the past month and a half since replant is certainly not out of the ordinary and therefore don't feel like the the unripe seed ratio for the bean. Three Carbon bean is particularly egregious such that it would make sense to focus on that, but obviously recognize that there was some downside volatility and people don't love the downside volatility, but bean stock is always going to have downside volatility.

So that's that's to some extent, the real question is just what is the right amount of downside volatility? And making a static change to feeds is not going to better answer that question. Whereas the introduction of a feed grade system could be could potentially answer it. How do you foresee the community discussing the new system and coming to a conclusion on, you know, how much to offer each seed, so each asset?

So there's a couple different options or potential options. I'd actually written some of them down, but now I can't find the papers that they were on, which is kind of unfortunate. So I would just kind of split from the, you know, shoot from the hip here. But the I, I mean, to some extent there's a question of whether you need a deposit white list at all.

And the main problem with not having the deposit white list is that if someone creates a currency that they control arbitrarily and now they can deposit those assets in the form of LP tokens in the silo, now they can start to earn an interest on some arbitrary amount of value that they control because the price of their token through which BTV will be determined is in theory totally controlled by them if they control the asset.

So somebody could create an arbitrary asset that they control, inflate the price, deploy it in a well, have a trade against beans. But since they control the asset, they control the price. And then by depositing more and more of those assets in the silo, acquire some amount of being interest or stock and seize the lead to be an interest that is not helpful to be in stock at all and purely manipulated.

So the starting point is that it probably is not acceptable to have any asset qualify for additional feeds or stock for BDB. Let's just talk about feed. So at the base layer, the probably the best you can do is have only the beans in the LP tokens valued automatically. So in theory, the way to get rid of the deposit white list is to have no white list, but in order to have feeds per allocated, per PDB and stock allocated for PDB, you'd need some minimum amount of stock as a total amount of stock voting for.

And what voting looks like is a separate question. But voting to allocate seeds and stock to this asset. So in effect, you don't need a white list. You could do it on a continuous basis where the stock voting for an asset reaches a minimum threshold. And the expectation is that that threshold is sufficiently high such that no individual or no concentrated set of individuals could acquire enough stock and vote in a meaningful capacity.

Such that they could get stock and seeds allocated to the system and then manipulate it because they control the full supply. So it would have to be a non-zero amount of stock or a significant amount of stock voting for a given asset on the white list. But that what that maybe it doesn't have to be a white list.

The point is just earning additional feeds per BDB would really be the fact because you can have a base additional to each stock per B to B, because you can always have Beanstalk give out stock and seeds based on the beans. But the question is whether Beanstalk stocks are going to value the other asset and in particular providing liquidity with other asset for B.

So that's that's kind of the first layer of the question is what would that minimum threshold be like? Does every time it require a bip where you need a white list or should it just be whether it's continuous voting and doc allocation for whitelisted assets? And then then the question is what how to map or translate b the stock voting on each given asset to a feed per BTV ratio and potentially a stock for B to B ratio or some minimum.

So that's kind of the basic question. Then the next question becomes, what is it that Beanstalk is really optimizing around where people are voting on certain thing and what is it that they're voting on? So to some extent there is there is an element of risk management where Beanstalk may want to limit its exposure to to any given asset and any given basket of assets because they're all centralized under a single party or they're all exposed to similar risks.

So there's a question of how old, Tim, the Dow in an algorithmic capacity, manage the risk of being stock to any given asset or basket of assets. So in addition to voting for given assets, for being stock, to value them to have stock and feeds and mapping that to some amount of stock and feeds per PDB, there's there's also a question of what are the assets that being structured, have exposure to how to set those limits and what are the layers to which those limits exist?

Meaning it should be at the token level. And then there may also be other groups of exposure or basket of exposure that the Dow wants to limit exposure to being a stock. And then a question around that is whether or not the exposure limitation should be explicit or not. And what that would look like is Beanstalk may not allow you to deposit more than a certain amount of what's called ether USD, senior USD T in the silo.

B Because there's a there's too much exposure to a given asset, or you can have it be not explicit where being stock allows people to do it. A deposit, a given asset in the silo infinitely. But the reward decreases the more that you deposit beyond a certain limit or it's some combination of the two where there's a hard limit and a soft limit and and all of those things can be variable or dynamic in some capacity.

And the best way to make all of those dynamic is unclear at the moment. The best way to to generalize sort of classes of assets are multiple tiers of classes of assets that are all limited and have the down vote on that. That's also unclear. And the best way to translate the vote voting to would given feeds and stock, it's unclear, but that's kind of at least at the moment, our current thinking or understanding of how it may make sense to implement such a system.

And I guess this is also unclear. But do you foresee how often would that voting be over? How often does it get to be assessed? It would probably in a perfect world, it would be continuous and then upgraded through a dip and then some sort of dynamic system that Beanstalk is operating on continuously, much like how the temperature is changing over time.

But the Dow rarely changes the way the temperature changes. You'd hope for there to be a similar system in place on the silo front. Okay. All right. I see. Also I'm just what the announcement and that has to do with a bug that a unify have highlighted it was a medium but basically in summary what it did was do you want me to summarize it?

Very hard for you to feel free, man. Yeah. So the bug basically had to do with how the marketplace currently functions with its listings. So there was a possibility for someone to clear. Let's say that it's things that are there, but there was no risk to any of the assets or to any of the the contracts or how basically the might as well functions.

So the DCM acknowledged that they did a change, they got it reviewed and that just got pushed over the emergency. So this is number three now. Okay. Continuing the discussion maybe before asking that there was one more thing about on the assets and there was a discussion on, you know, the conversions between them and how does that translate.

We briefly touched upon that and another thought, maybe we can do that once again and that is 100 being speaker. Does not equal one being speaker, but 100 being equals. One moment. So, you know, that's why you might that might be confusing to some customers, but this is where I would say the discrepancy is. But where the answer is to to why you if you're my clients, all those conversions look, I put this under the ideas channel.

There was a proposal that I believe it was like sync and zeros. And that has to do with using online assets where the ideas channel okay. And the the headline basically is enable it purchases in the field using you know, online assets. I think this is, you know, self explanatory, but more or less that would be some source of those who aren't and don't have an incentive to convert.

That would have an incentive to use their online assets basically to sort the field and things like the place to bank. Well, I haven't had a chance to read their proposal, so apologies if we're not speaking accurately about the proposal, but in general being stock issues, soil to remove beans from the supply and in particular from the supply of various liquidity pools.

And so in short, when, whenever, whenever beans are borrowed by being stock, the beans are burned. Now the concept is, at least from a theoretical perspective, that if you assume that the market is at some sort of equilibrium, that in order for people to lend beans to be in stock because beans are sort of useless just sitting there, someone's going to have to acquire beans or withdraw them from the silo and in particular in this case, the question is whether or not the beans that are in the silo as unripe bean three curve liquidity should be able to be used to sow beans.

Now currently the unripe bean three curve is is valued by being stocked from a BTV perspective at about $0.22 on the bean. But because of chop, the amount of beans that you'd actually get for chopping your beet unripe beans or your unripe being three four is less than a sack. If I, if I'm if my math is correct and therefore the there's there's a a a dissonance between the beans under the bean three curve and the the beans that you can get for chopping your your unripe bean three curve.

And the proposal is particularly interesting because in in this case, let's let's say there's $0.22 of beans in the bean three curve. If, if that person who has gone right bean three curve were to top their unripe bean three curve, they'd get cents on the bean for less than a cent on the bean and maybe cents on the 22 sense of a bean.

So that's the center of of being overall. And the amount of positive get the amount of soil that you use would be really minimal. Whereas if they sowed with the unripe bean three curve, that would in theory it would. I mean, on the one hand, if the price is below a dollar, I mean, there's a couple of ways to there's a couple of ways you could potentially handle the unripe three curve.

So it's really a question of what do you do with the non being part of it. If it's above packets, it's probably easier to convert to unripe beans. And then so but I guess in some cases you may not be able to convert, but you just want to sow the unripe bean three curve. And because there's more soil than you can convert.

So you'd want to just, you'd want to just throw the bean part and then maybe like forfeit your you're bean three curve or just forfeit half of the bean three curve. And then the ratio of being beans to three curve in the pool would change that would probably make the most sense. And then you could do it on both sides, the peg.

And then the point is what is, how much soil can you actually sell? So in this case, your contribution to peg maintenance, your removal of beans from the supply is $0.22. And so there is a pretty good argument that you should get credited with $0.22 of soil, or you could get credited to $0.22 of soil or at least some premium over the chop.

So maybe there is some parameter between zero and 100 that you could scale the the, the so chop, if you will, where you're so where you're chopping the acids just to sew them in. I guess the problem with this idea, just to play devil's advocate, is that unripe beans, it's not really helpful for being stock to have them sewn because they're not.

I mean, I guess you could make the argument that they're potential supply at $0.22 on the bean, but they're not really because of the chop restriction. They're not really potential sell pressure. They're just potential convert pressure which bean stock welcomes. And the fact that you could, if you have welcome sell pressure instead of converting that to welcome convert pressure.

Excuse me, if you're a welcome convert pressure on the upside downward instead of converting that to the to what bean stuff uses attractive conversion ability upward. Instead you're you're reducing your conversion ability and burning some beans. And in exchange for pods it probably doesn't it probably doesn't meaningfully affect bean stock's ability to maintain the peg, but it's unclear that that's preferred behavior or optimal behavior.

So it probably wouldn't make sense to have that scalar on the on the reward B 100 so that there's no char penalty, but maybe I mean, not it kind of makes sense. So with that said, that it makes sense from an economics perspective would probably put that in the category of not the most meaningful at the margin when considering what the development effort would look like.

And so from that perspective, not not sure that that's worthwhile to implement right now, but it's it's certainly a neat idea that is worthy of more discussion and over time may make sense to implement, but probably, probably a little bit more complicated than, than than what it's worth at the moment, given the the lack of development resources. If, if there was infinite resources around bean stock of course, you know, like right this makes sense generally from an economic perspective or at least a dozen first glance, but everything has to be analyzed at the margin and there's limited things to be worked on at the moment, and I'm not sure that this is particularly meaningful, but

it's certainly interesting and seems generally economically sound and sync and zero. Jesus here, both of you out of the audience. So if you'd like to come on stage and continue the discussion, please feel free to do so and bring that, please. We need to sort of set it up. So setting out to go on the call to anyone who's here, if you have, you know, friends or friends of friends, recommend them.

Tell them about Beanstalk, send them some of them out, sign them. I was told I'm going to have to talk to developers if anyone was willing on wanting to work on Beanstalk. Okay, we're just going to, I guess, address or comment had a Smith as you know typical weekly question and that's if there there's any updates on the way some sometimes not on the stand in terms of when well as in Palm's no real update things are things are moving ahead slow and steady and still hoping to get this under audit before the end of the year cap.

Next question comes from Bacchus. Could Beanstalk benefit from decks aggregators, routing trades through Beanstalk even though they don't necessarily produce any NAB demand? Definitely. Just in general, the but it is it's hard to say exactly what the benefit would be for Beanstalk other than volatility, which is good for users who are converting and performing type maintenance functions. So it's it's really a question of it's hard to imagine there being significant volatility from from the beanstalk decks, but a non-zero amount of volume, particularly if there's deep liquidity in certain wells, could probably be expected through routers.

And that's largely a function of because traders will get a better price because of the lack of fee, assuming similar debt. So when that happens, you'll get some volatility in the wells up to at least the fee of the other protocol and or other protocols with competitive liquidity and depth, liquidity, depth, we should say. And it'll just manifest in micro volatility in the wells or around the bid price.

But comfortable reasonable amount of volatility because again, it's within the bound of whatever is cheapest when you consider the fee and the depth. So you can't expect there to be that much volatility from being included in routers, but it should generally be a boon for converters in terms of some ability to to make some money converting. So would you say the main benefit would be attractive, Peg, or, you know, tighter payments?

Not sure it's a tighter peg because there's volatility there, but feel like the there's just benefits for the users. We're performing peg maintenance, so there's more opportunities to to perform peg maintenance. So I. Okay, the next question comes from Beethoven and he asks, could root build out a betting market using passive? So in general, the I mean, it's probably not best to speak on behalf of root, but our understanding is the way that they're implementing the market originally was a keyboard fork as we understood it, but now think that it's just going to be its own code.

The first version of the root market's should be sufficiently generalized that the the currencies or the assets that are denominated, that root markets are denominated in extend to any erc20 token, including unripe beans and unripe being three curves and should even include beanstalk deposits. So in theory, there could be a a betting market using unripe beans or unripe bean three curve, or at least some market.

Maybe you could have a version of a root token for unripe assets, and then you could have betting markets in an unripe fruit or two wrapper for unripe assets. A couple of different things that may make sense and probably the market will sniff out the best solution, but a couple of different ways to do it. But certainly in theory as possible.

So Chad said that, you know, it would be something for us to determine and this is a continuation on the is he a tax or the zero schema? And is there something to determine at what depth, you know, before? Well, it becomes competitive price wise with other foods taking into account as against I believe BREAM did a small exercise that showed the difference between curves and what a zero scheme would look like.

But that is something that can be specific and an aggregate at some point. You know, sorry to cut you off my but at some point you'd probably want there to be some sort of liquidity aggregator for wells and then some sort of router that that does exactly the calculation that Xylem is talking about. So Chad is talking about and factors in trading piece on various exchanges.

So if you use it does doesn't have to be a bienstock router but if you use this router let's call it a beanstalk router, that that should always tell you the optimal trade on on any of the exchanges that are included in the router, including the wells when factoring in fees and depth and gas cost. Okay. We are at the end of the town hall chat questions, so let's give it to him and see if others have other questions.

And again, it can be about something that was discussed today or anything that comes under the Typekit come on stage, the floor deserves for this. I might ask a question. You were just mentioned that route originally wanted to for seafarers, but now they're looking to build something from scratch. What was the limitation with sea power that led to that decision?

Do you know the reason? Not on this end, but perhaps either Publius or maybe even, I think coconut. Who's one of the route devs, was working on it. Maybe Coconut wants to come up here and talk about it or or public. So open invitation but on this and not sure. Okay coconuts if you'd like to consider free to do so, Chad asks What's your favorite World Cup team this year?

USA maybe there we have it again. Let's give it a few minutes and see if others have other questions. Casper asks, Why don't we make a Canadian daughter or a Euro title? Nobody wants a coin. Okay, he continues. It goes on and asks, What about Bitcoin? Or so? That is a very interesting question. This is something that we've written about before, which is that the the the inflationary nature of U.S. dollars is makes it easier for Beanstalk to maintain its peg against such an asset than a deflationary asset like Bitcoin or eat and therefore, it may be it may be that beanstalk can maintain its peg against an inflationary asset like dollars, but not a

heavily deflationary asset like Bitcoin or ETHE and it may be somewhere in the middle of that beanstalk, can maintain a peg against some sort of CPI type of basket, but still not against Bitcoin. Maybe at some point it can get to a place where it's so good, it can effectively issue synthetic ether, synthetic bitcoin or just say exactly.

It certainly seems to be risky at this point in time, but over time it may make sense. In the meantime, you know, there may be versions of bean stock or forks of being stock that try to peg to set of dollars, ether bitcoin or, you know, even other less stable fiat currencies. But at least, at least for the moment, don't think that I don't think that's really attractive.

At least it's it seems very risky from our perspective, given that being stuck is still in its early and experimental phase and pegging to a deflationary asset like bitcoin or ether can rip upwards. This is difficult. Now there's a couple of things to say. One is that if Bienstock becomes the dominant use case for Etherium or and the vast majority of ether state ether is trading against beans.

It's very possible that you still get some of these negative effects from the volatility, although in this case it wouldn't be because it's deflationary. That would that would help bean stock, but the volatility would still negatively affect buying stocks. So this goes back to the earlier conversation around limiting exposure to any one asset. And maybe at some point that even goes as far as limiting exposure to the assets that are that BIENSTOCK has issued.

In terms of PEG. And so what are the liabilities of bean stock in terms of the currency that it has outstanding and the denominations and maybe the Dow could one day limit that as well and it could all run on a single credit system. But I think we're probably getting a little ahead of ourselves there. Maybe just to stir the pot, although our our our instincts are perhaps telling us not to, but we're going to do so anyways.

Something that's been on our mind is that at scale, this problem of volatility really does start to play itself out because you've got you've got a limited number or amount of on chain value that can exist except for ether meaning. Other stablecoins that are collateralized, they don't scale. It's hard to imagine much on chain value existing at the scale of trillions of dollars other than ether.

And why would either be worth tons of dollars? Well, because it's the only decentralized asset that being stock and can really demand at scale. And there's a positive feedback loop there, but there's also a negative feedback loop there. And when at true scale, it can become a problem on the downside where the price of ether's coming down either because expected demand for beans is coming down or being activity is coming down, and therefore demand for ETH is coming down or any combination of the above that creates some sort of downward spiral.

And so one potential idea and again, I don't think it's really at the place where it could really sustain a system like this. It may make sense to have either stock issue or have another bean stock issue, but it might be probably, if you can do it under a single bean stock, I think it's probably the optimal way to do it.

You have Bienstock issue and A.E. and then you can you can basically combine is and the anti to create another stablecoin that can scale infinitely and then of beans trade against that rat. Ethan A.E. But there's a lot of complexity that would have to go into that around getting the pricing around A.E. to work. And it's very complicated and frankly, I haven't thought through all of it, but if we're talking about how to really scale the on chain value in a way that's not super volatile and highly correlated to the value of beans, this is one potential solution.

And I think it's I think it's very far, far in the future. But, you know, I figured it was relevant enough to Kasparov's question that we throw out the, you know, the idea, but it's nothing more than an idea at this point. In theory, there can be a beanstalk that issues, you know, to be an equivalent of this and trades against the dam that can absorb, you know, the deflationary nature of this backed.

But I guess the question would be what would be the use of like what would people use up, you know, the equivalent of they would probably just it would probably just be to deposit in the silo and provide liquidity and it would it would be in the form of a hedging product of some sort. But otherwise, I mean, maybe people just want you know, people want to short it.

There's lots of different reasons potentially. But the main reason you would expect this, again, the only reason to even do this is at the scale where this the quality between beans and ether becomes possible. And you'd have to really analyze market dynamics at that scale and not in its current form. So this is way down the line. But yeah, not exactly sure how it would all work.

To be frank Lupton asks What about it being bankable at this point here? What would be a basket of other currencies if do you mean anti? I'm actually not sure. So, dumpling, you can help me. I have no idea what you're talking about. Don't one. Sorry, dumpling. You can feel free to like elaborate more. You can also come and say to me the extent why would acid put this isn't the the weakness of assets or let's say the the pools are in the side are to an extent behaving as a basket of currencies you know being against so being a speculative but very it of the inflation of being or the amount of being or

being sold mints is correlated to that basket that is you know being up against on the side of it's correlated. But then you have to subtract the converts. Yes. So that's why through customizing the feeds per BTV, you can actually customize the that the relationship between being stock in the assets that it trades against and particular assets that are trades against them.

So if we assume no one is selling beams and then maybe no one is buying beings either and and being associated against those, what the assets the rate of minting would be equivalent to that. It's inflation of all of these other and no one's convert amounts. Convert. Yeah. So no one's selling. No one's buying, no one's converting. Then the inflation rate or the amount of soil that was issued would be exclusively correlated to the aggregate at the weighted average of the exposure to the assets in the sale of that being tapped.

Yeah. So one can think maybe of the assets as being such choice of, you know, of a basket or the basket that it's, which is the case and that's what that's a good seed gauge system should function effectively accept carry. We are at the end of the questions again so give it a minute or two and see if others questions.

Okay dumping extent came back to expand again. So he says that after World War Two, Keynes suggested the banker in which was sold for basket for what currency that, you know, they can own them internationally can be used as international settlement. So let's propose the Bretton Woods identity to catch on. I'm just not too familiar. So it's hard for me to say.

But in general, I guess he's talking about a Fiat, like a basket of fiat currencies and fiat because of the nature of and I if that assumptions around and the rest of this answer is ridiculous but if you tell about a basket of fiat currencies, the nature of credit is such that you really expect one issuer of credit to to be the dominant issuer of fiat currency.

It's possible that if there was a sufficient like low friction architecture where you've got a good basket, that that tendency could be avoided. But think that it's probably pretty hard to avoid a single credit based currency from ultimately dominating the market due to network effects. Now that being said, if you're talking about a basket of real assets or a combination of real and fiat assets, then we're basically about the game system where it's just a basket of assets and currencies.

And the more assets that trade in the silo, the more assets that can be included in this index. And at some point at some point, that'll that'll just be how the system works generally. So don't, don't know too much about the bank or idea specifically, but yeah, hopefully that's somewhat helpful. Yeah.

From most of my limited understanding, especially of the Bretton Woods in general thing, anything, I think spirit or staying 6 minutes doesn't work and the long and the long term or the longer. And this is why, you know, currencies float and, you know, markets decide what what this exchange was with what Casper asks, what other ways could increase this credit from sea of credit.

What I would issue would being stuck on a launching credit score. So not not familiar with Fedora not also not really sure what it would even mean to increase its credit profile. Yeah, not not sure. But yeah, maybe that that's not a very good answer. Maybe it's something that one day, you know, more or so on for what rate?

You know, being stocks, maybe parts or not, social and that sort of thing where credit agencies would. Yeah, I mean, Casper's is to make it a more attractive credit profile. I mean, I think just paying back debt is probably it. So maybe getting credit appraisers to look at the system and analyze it. But I don't know, at least from our perspective, not too focused on increasing the profile of being stock as much as just improving it.

So not to not to focus on that, but perhaps other people other people can or should or I don't know. It's not really something we spend much time thinking about. But as being stock rose, you'd expect its credit profile to improve naturally. So the best way to provide is to pay back that. Yeah, I would. I mean, certainly your credit score, not short of profile means the same thing, but certainly your credit rating at the at the minimum, yes.

Okay. Well, approaching the hour, we give it another minute and see if others have other questions. Can I ask who does probably have for the World Series? To be frank, I don't really care. The Yankees are out. The Dodgers are out. So on this and we're not going to be rooting for anyone. Okay. All right. For that, then we can end this class.

Thank you, everyone, for joining us. As always, thank you for this, for taking the time to answer questions. We'll see you next week.