If Bitcoin doesn't quantum-proof it will be EXPENSIVE

All right, guys. So, I have previously done an episode on quantum with one of our mutual friends, Rearen, who's much more on the skeptic side. Today, I am bringing on somebody who is actively working on, I would say, the other side. I'm not sure that's exactly how to frame it, but somebody who's working on solutions for postquantum cryptography and is very much in the camp that quantum is coming, I assume, and that we need to be prepared.

So to that end, Tyler, welcome. Give us a little bit of your background just for context, then we'll dive in.

Thanks, Squ. Yeah, I'm stoked to be here. My background is actually I studied physics and math in undergrad. So I had two years of quantum mechanics. I loved physics. I worked on fusion reactors. I was like, actually, you know, fusion is the future of energy. Here we are now, you know, 20 years later. It's still 20 years away. But I do think that's getting better.

That as an aside though, you know, ended up doing a PhD in organizations, like organizations and entrepreneurship, which was a hard pivot away, and then found my way to blockchains because, well, they were just kind of the culmination of everything I had studied. It was like I had studied finance, I had studied organizations, I had studied physics and math, and you just got to do all of that in crypto. So, I was like, this place is amazing.

So got nerd sniped into crypto via Dows actually because I was wrapping up my PhD and everyone was like we're reinventing the organization on chain and I was like oh all right sweet like I love this energy I'm skeptic about this but whatever. So that is why my Twitter name is Dr. Dow.

Yeah that's pretty you know how many successful Dows are there? I think like maybe Bitcoin although Bitcoin's kind of failing as a Dow these days and then fell down like the ZK rabbit hole was working at the Tapper Wizards the past two years kind of pushing on cat how can we scale Bitcoin all those things and then actually I can claim at least one thing while I was there which is naming the quantum cats I love quantum like I love physics I think it's fascinating I just wasn't smart enough to do a PhD in that subject and so when we when we were coming up with the quantum cats.

It was like great like one of the things this can do is we can do these things called lampport signatures which are quantum resistant like this is great cat is postquantum like let's call them the quantum cats and then like a month or two later everyone realizes like oh oh like you know taproot is not actually quantum resistant and cat's only going into taproot addresses so actually psych like putting cat in does not make bitcoin quantum resistant we need to do more but that has always been like a passion of mine within crypto.

And so, actually, this is probably almost like a year and a half ago or something. Um, when project 11 was just getting started, I got a call from my friend Leor, who I worked with in VC before I joined the Tap Wizards, and he now has his own fund, and and he was like, I want to start a company around the idea that quantum computing is coming on timelines faster than people think. I've been talking with a bunch of physicists like I'm convinced people are mispricing this risk and I want to get something started here.

And this was the time I was out there, you know, promoting OPCAT and and all of these things. And I was like, this is like this is a really cool idea. I feel like it needs like it's not time for that narrative right now because the narrative right now is scaling Bitcoin, but I want to like tell me more like how can I help? I want to be involved. And so I've actually known, you know, the Project 11 team since its inception. I was advising them. I basically just got moved up on the website from advisor to team member in the past few weeks.

Thank you. And so as the quantum narrative as I like felt the pull of the quantum narrative more and more, I just couldn't resist like kind of moving over to that side and pushing that forward because it is just this thing that sits at an intersection of, you know, multiple passions of mine, you know, like I don't know, like physics plus blockchains. I just like I love both those things so much. And so being able to work, you know, smack in the middle of those two, it just gets me jazzed and and gets me up in the morning.

So now I joined Project 11 full-time about a month ago, leading their product or we should have some good stuff coming down the pipeline here in the next few months. So I'm excited about that and I'm excited about kind of the the the vision for the company as well of just, you know, moving blockchains into the postquantum but even like quantum future.

So, okay. So, I know and I know you are I wouldn't say building in stealth, but you haven't announced everything yet. So, you said beforehand that like you know obviously some of this will come out later, but give us me give me an overview of of project 11 like what is what is the kind of premise to the extent you can talk about it.

Yeah. So, the premise of project 11 was it it it was what I kind of mentioned in the intro. It's like we think quantum computing is coming faster than most people believe. If that is the case, like if we're living in that future, what do we need to be doing today in order to secure the entire digital asset space in this new world?

And the big challenge for our industry is that there is no CEO who can go and say like hey you're using MLDDSA or you're using Falcon signatures and like go put those in all of our stuff now. Like if you don't do it, you're fired. Cool. Like that will still take organizations a very long time because there's just so many dependencies if you want to actually get out all of this classical cryptography from your systems.

And so you see companies like Cloudflare have started doing this today where like 35% of traffic sent through Cloudflare now is actually done with a postquantum like handshake. So like postquantum TLS basically. And that's for a company that has a CEO that can fire people if they don't do what they want to do. Within blockchains, we have this additional level. We don't just have the execution challenge, but we also have the coordination challenge.

So, how do we actually coordinate around what these changes are? Who are the people in charge of kind of like making these changes? And, you know, when and what are those changes going to be? And so Project 11's goal is to basically be the our CEO, Alex, likes to use the term vanguard, so I'll use it, the vanguard for, you know, moving blockchains into the postquantum era.

And on a more you know like tactical level for me what that means is pragmatically producing products and services that consumers can use today to protect themselves from postquantum. It means working and researching on you know postquantum standards and how you know we can build better standards that work well for blockchains. And then it also means you know being parts of the conversations with these blockchains whether it's Bitcoin or Ethereum or Salana about how we can help assist that push forward.

Okay. So and again I know a lot of this will be coming out. What is the business case for project before we go like to we're going to go much more to quantum in a second but like what is the business case like yes you can upgrade a lot of these systems but you're you just raised money right like the intention obviously in the future is to make money what what is like sort of the the business case here

So I think it's kind of what I talked about before it's it's both consumer and like technical services business I think at the end of the day our goal will be to be pulling these blockchains in future. So like I want to be the gateway for consumers to get into the postquantum future. And if we are kind of the gateway or the bridge that all you know like things must flow through in order to get and become postquantum then I think I feel confident there is a very good business case there for how we can capture value along that way.

So like just like let me ask is this if you had to would you consider yourself more of a consulting organization or would you consider yourself more of a B2B SAS or some combo of both? But if you had to choose

I think it's probably more like the consulting and B2B SAS in my mind are ways to help push along this consumer flywheel. Right? So if if we can take a blockchain and move it in and like write the postquantum implementation of it, I think that is a very powerful flywheel. And then I think there if we have consumer products out there that just naturally plug into this new blockchain. in this is like a very natural like imagine we have like you you put all of your you know assets in some consumer products we have and as soon as this new postquantum Ethereum or postquantum salana or whatever comes online like you're immediately plugged into this connected to it and and you can transact like you're you know you're there.

So basically like can we build that consumer substrate that people recognize as postquantum secure and then can we then start layering on top of that you know the actual chains and things you want to interact with.

Okay. Got it. Okay. So then let's just dive right into well what is it in the past? Well, okay. So, obviously in terms of hype and sort of focus, the quantum discussion has really come about I would say in the last 3 months like at least in so far as Twitter and then you know broader conversation now this conversation has been going on for 5 10 multi you know decades and in fact like Satoshi has you know recognized this I think at least in conversation on forums with with people as you know potentially being a threat in the future. like this has been an idea that has been around for quite some time.

As of late, it has gained much more traction. I think in part Nick Carter writing about it and then sort of the subsequent you know discussions from there. What is it as of you know the past 3 months like there's insane exponential growth in AI? Are we sort of extrapolating to some extent and saying like this is reasonable to think that quantum is going to follow a similar path like just start rambling. I rambled you can ramble now.

Yeah. Yes. I think the way there's been a few things that have happened that just lead me to believe that we're like approaching an inflection point in how quickly we can start, you know, executing on quantum computers. I think the big one last year was Google's Willow basically showing like, hey, the a big issue with quantum computers is this idea of error correction. And it's like these things are noisy and how do we how do we get the noise out of the system and up until last year like adding more bits to the system increase the noise and what Google's Willow you know paper essentially said is actually we found a way that when you layer on more bits it's actually going to reduce the noise and that was like oh crap like this you know This is a breakthrough that moves us into a new regime where now like in theory and I I I will say that like in theory we can build these systems in such a way that now larger systems are not actually causing exponential blow up in in issues there.

That to me was the big one from last year. If there's like one takeaway there, the things I'm excited about are for this year are like improvements in algorithms. I know like Shor's, you know, Shor's algorithm is known as it's it's like the thing that breaks classical cryptography. So for listeners who aren't familiar at all with quantum computing, maybe I'll start there with the the idea with quantum computing is it's basically a new computing paradigm or regime.

Uh so in classical computers we have bits that are zero or one like they are one or the other. They they definitely cannot be both. In quantum computing, we use these weird things called cubits, which can be zero, one or a combination of the two. And when you have these new types of bits, you can solve new types of problems. And one of the problems that we can solve with cubits is basically it's it's like a factoring algorithm.

And this reduces down to something called a hidden subgroup problem. If you're like a math nerd and want to go down the rabbit hole, like go Google that. But the TLDDR is that this hidden subgroup problem can be solved with a quantum computer. It can't be solved with a classical computer. And the hidden subgroup problem is what underpins all of our cryptography in blockchains today.

So if you have Bitcoin and you're like, you know, not my keys, not my coin. Like that's that's what everyone says. Well, in the quantum computing era, it's kind of like your keys, my coins if I have a quantum computer, right? Uh so it does not matter whether you know you're thinking, oh, I have I own my keys. Well, now if I have a quantum computer, I can also own your keys because I can solve the this problem that underpins the thing that allows you to spend your Bitcoin.

That is the risk that quantum computers pose to our space. So, I think maybe like starting there is good. And then the question is okay given this risk how far away are we from the moment where a quantum computer does come along and you know Satoshi's coins start moving right and people go well either Satoshi has decided it's time to floor my Bitcoin or someone has built floor

I love that go on yeah you know this mass list at floor price. Exactly. You know, it's it's appropriate for today today's conversation, I think. But yeah, you know what? This comes along and you can imagine Satoshi's coins move and then you have to ask yourself, well, does this mean someone has managed to build a sufficiently powerful quantum computer such that they've been able to figure out the secret keys for Satoshi's coins and now they're spending them? That is like the risk we want to head off.

There's a there's a fun like if I'm going to ramble, there's also, you know, our friend Reuten who who thinks quantum computers are scams, but actually, and I respect Ruden a lot and he's he's a very sharp guy, feels more confident that AGI is going to actually solve this hidden subgroup problem using classical computers. Uh, and so it doesn't actually matter how the cryptography gets broken for a system like Bitcoin. It just matters that we have alternative options for the cryptography we use to secure our keys.

And if we have that, then it makes it, you know, much easier to say, okay, we we call this crypto agility, right? You can easily substitute in one signing algorithm for another. And now we're no longer really too worried. We're definitely still worried. And Bitcoin itself should be like that. That's a a can of worms we can go down. But, you know, in theory, you could imagine everyone has a wallet and they click a button and it says like move from classical signing to postquantum signing and then who knows like quantum computer breaks the quantum signing and there's another algorithm that we think we can move and everyone just clicks a button and it's like move from you know current postquantum signing quantum signing algorithm one to algorithm two. like now we're the system is no longer you know purely dependent on the the underlying cryptography because we have the ability to flex in new cryptography as needed.

you and Rearen for example like I think you guys can have a very constructive conversation and oftentimes this stuff doesn't come out necessarily in public which okay there's you know pros and cons to this but the fact of the matter is I think that well it's just good to see that there's like conversation where it's not like I hate you as a person you know you see this a lot on the timeline where you don't like someone's bags and like it becomes very personal it's like dude like I you know you run into this a lot so anyways that on that note I did have this conversation with Reard and I posed him this same question which I'm about to ask I find quantum to be in interestingly it is probably to me the biggest disconnect for normies but also not just normies people like myself who aren't extremely technical but like I try to pay attention quantum seems something where there's at least for the time being a ton of hype a ton of mania people are you know encouraging us to move fast people are even speculating that coins are being dumped because people are afraid of this and yet from my research and also So, I'm kind of going off of Reardon here. The progress thus far seems like relatively low to the amount of hype.

And so, like you brought up the willow chip for example, what what explains this disconnect? Like all everyone's screeching and I'm over here like I don't want to lose all my coins, right? But at the same time, I'm like, wait, why why can't a factor 21, right? Like that's the common refrain. Like, why doesn't a quantum computer factor 21?

Yeah. I think so in in my mind some of the disconnect is around how you price this risk of something coming along quickly. So if we look at the if we look at the slope of AI improvements since the you know all you need is attention paper.

Yeah. I don't think people were really capable of imagining where we are today based off of like that one like Transformers like these are interesting like I wonder what these can do. Fast forward like four years later when you know 01 comes out and that was like a a that was a paradigm shift. That was a literal like paradigm shift in how work was done, how like so many things changed and the the pace of that change was all spurred by this kind of like these fundamental updates and changes.

I think Willow is like an example of this and I think in the next year or two we're going to see that attention is all you need paper for quantum and that is basically going to say like the the race has started and once the race starts and once that cat is out of the bag the challenge is okay it would be great if everyone realizes this is the attention is all you need paper but people didn't realize the attention was all you need paper was what it was right until a few years later. And so in that intervening time, like all this stuff happens and 01 comes out and 01 comes out and people are like, "Wow, this is amazing." Blah blah blah.

Well, the the equivalent of 01 coming out for the blockchain or crypto industry is everyone's coins are The industry like has to move everything. And part of me is like, why as an investor, like not as someone who loves blockchains and physics, all this stuff, as an investor, why on earth would I keep my money in these systems that their whole thing was security and like ownership and, you know, distributed ownership, be the self- sovereign person, and now that narrative just got oneshotted by someone spending Satoshi's coins.

Yeah. and you're like, "Well, here to y'all can try and figure out like postquantum stuff and maybe bring this back, but from a like entire like we're looking at the entire universe of of everything here. Why am I wanting to invest in the system that said it's so amazing? It's decentralized. It's all of these things, but what it's actually shown me is it can't coordinate and upgrade and actually respond to these existential threats to it.

Yeah. And that to me is the risk that's like not properly like I I know people are like we don't need to move today but when I look at quantum I'm like this is this is the thing that could oneshot our industry and saying like it's not coming and we're going to put our heads in the sand. I think what I can't tell you a certainty a quantum computer is coming in the next five years but I also can't tell you with certainty that a quantum computer spinning Satoshi's coins is not coming in the next five years and and so my question is like given that you know what risk level how certain how certain are you how certain is everyone that this won't happen and and that to me is the the way to frame this question is like if if if you thought there was a 1% chance that this would happen in the next 5 years is the answer like no worries guys like let's let's just like ignore this until some more information comes out and comes along.

I I I think the answer is no. And it's exactly because of what we talked about earlier. It's not just the execution, it's the coordination around the execution and these timelines where there is a very painful scenario for blockchains, which is quantum computers start spending people's tokens.

Let me take a moment to talk to you about Ellipsus Labs, a team I've known for a while. The Ellipsus team is one of the few that I consistently point to and say, "These guys really know what they're doing." Ellipsus Labs brought capital efficient order books to Salana and started the prop amm revolution with Sulfi. Altogether, they've saved retail traders tens of millions of dollars by reducing slippage on spot markets. They're bringing the same level of expertise to perpetuals with Phoenix, which is live today. Ellipsus Labs is backed by Paradigm, Electric Capital, and Han Ventures. I would consider them the foremost experts in crypto market microstructure. The best part is Ellipsus Labs is hiring for New York-based engineers. Work with a small, focused team who are results driven, collaborative, and use a modern stack. If you're an engineer with a DeFi team that's already proven itself in the market, go to lipsislabs.xyzcareers.

Okay, so here's something that I have heard and I'm also like pontificating right now. So tell me if this does not sound correct at all, but the TBT moment was real. I agree. And I also think that yeah, it was hard to imagine four years later we'd be where we are. I think that's true. Also, you could look at this slightly differently and say that, you know, Eleazar thought that by now we would be in the singularity. So maybe but that's maybe that's not like that's kind of not apples to apples. I like you know what I mean? So I'm not trying to make that argument, but I'm just suggesting that there were like many potential outcomes with the kind of advent of of like LLMs and or or the practical implementation of LLMs and to where we are today.

So look, I'm not denying any like the exponential growth. I'm in agreement with you there. What I would say though is like humans tend to innovate sort of in a staggered way in the sense that some things do see exponential growth at times and there are also things that simply have not seen exponential growth for quite some time. And often times I'm being very like I'm generalizing here. Often times those tend to be more in what we consider meat space or physical space. And I think quantum is some sort of in between of physical and digital space. But like a very oversimplified and probably naive analogy is that like jet engines and you know plane travel is not that different from 40 years ago. You know what I mean? We're not going twice as fast. Like the planes aren't like exponentially safer. I mean but my my point there is just that there's a lot of things in the physical world that don't see exponential growth.

How much in your opinion is quantum predicated on physical cubits, right? Or like just the physical creation of these computers which like by the way are very much not like normal computers. If you go and look at pictures, you can quickly intuit it that these are not like your average, you know, M1 Mac or whatever. So like tell explain to me how much of the exponential growth do you think needs to occur in physical space versus digital space and like where that may differ from something like AI? I'm kind of playing like pseudo devil's advocate here if you will.

Yeah. And I think um an important distinction to actually bring up here is that quantum computing is is a theory of computation and it doesn't have anything to do with physical space or anything like that. All it postulates is that we have these fundamental building blocks called cubits. And cubits are these bits basically that can live in a superp position of 0 and one. It so happens that in reality we we know we can create these things from quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics been around since the 1920s.

But you can write a whole theory of quantum computing and and it can remain completely up here like pie in the sky and it says if you have cubits you can do that and that is where things like shores algorithm come from uh that basically say if if there were these things called cubits that you know held superp positions and held low enough error rates then we could crack the keys to Satoshi's coins. The other side of that question is okay like no one can disagree with that that is a mathematically proven certainty that is like a sound theory.

Now the question is can we actually produce these cubits in reality and I think this goes to your question of physical space and can we then actually run this algorithm that we know works in theory on these physical cubits. And so in many ways I I look at it as like we've developed the theory for the jet engine and now we are you know in in the like Boeing labs trying to figure out how can we put this jet engine together given we have the blueprint we know that if we can get to this state this is what happens now engineers like you need to figure out how to do this and along the way I think we'll discover like hey actually maybe there act there there are ways to improve the algorithm or there are ways to engineer this in a way that we we can solve things faster.

I think the big thing is money is really flooding into this space to push this engineering challenge forward and that is what excites me. I like seeing, you know, like private money being put into scientific research because it like it just encourages people to pursue different architectures, like take different paths and like that is what is exciting to me, right? There there there are many different ways to build a quantum computer and each one of those ways has many different companies exploring the best way to engineer this.

Ultimately, I'm I'm sure it's going to end up being like some combination of these in the future that, you know, lead to quantum computing, networking, and all of these things. But I think what is very exciting is that there are so many architectural innovations being pursued on the engineering front. And that to me is the primordial soup you need to get this, you know, engineering and and scientific breakthrough that allows us to say like here it is. We've cracked like what is needed to build the first cryptographically relevant quantum computer.

Okay. You talked about that, you know, like the attention is all you need paper. What would be if you had to hypothesize here? What would be that moment for quantum? It doesn't seem like you think we've had it, but you think that is coming and that could be like a zero to one unlock whereby the jet engine is getting built probably by many people at the same time and there's a confluence of you know innovation and and yeah go so right now I think one of the there there's two big challenges in quantum one is and and I'm going to call it quantum engineering like engineering a quantum computer right we talked about earlier which was this idea of error correction so how do you how do you get errors out of the system and I guess the second which is is like related but not exactly that is this thing it's the ratio of physical cubits needed to make a logical cubit and so this comes with error correction essentially a logical cubit is is a cubit that performs like the ideal cubit we theorized about.

It's a thing in perfect superposition. It never has errors. Nothing ever goes wrong. And physical cubits are, you know, subject to noise and all of these things. So the question is how many of these physical cubits do we need to simulate one of these logical cubits? And I think what is going to happen is someone is going to come out and say like I have found a way to actually right now you know we think we need like 10,000 to a million like physical cubits for one logical cubit or like crazy numbers.

I think that that number is going to be knocked down by multiple orders of magnitude and I think someone is going to come out and say I figured this out and this is going to be the breakthrough we needed to like reduce error correction like this system now is producing a lot less noise because there are a lot less moving parts in it and at the same time I think someone is going to come out and say I found a way to run shor's algorithm like much more efficiently on this quantum computer and so maybe it won't take as long and it won't take as many like revs of the cycle like literally bit flips in order to get there and I think those two things combined are going to put us in a place where we're like oh yeah quantum computer actually looks like could be coming like yeah actually they're building it right now and if they build this thing the way they say they're going to yeah they're going to be factoring you six-digit numbers in in 18 months and in two and a half years like bye-bye Satoshi's keys and and like that is what I I think is coming and I think it's coming faster than you know people are willing to price.

I mean that's the bet of our company. That's the bet of Project 11. If we're wrong like you know we're wrong. But I I think I also tie it back to that idea of crypto agility. Regardless of if it's quantum computer, if it's AGI, if it's whatever, I do think in order to survive into the future, I think current cryptography is going to need to be deprecated, changed, it's going to be broken for whatever reason. And if these blockchains are going to be these forever things, the forever machines that run forever, we're going to need ways to swap in and out of of how we prove ownership in these systems. And that ownership proving mechanism needs to be robust to changes in cryptography.

Okay. Yeah. And I think that's very fair. Like regardless of my how I may interpret a lot of this, I think it is very reasonable to say the the risk should be well I I don't I honestly don't know like the degree to which it's priced in. I think that and it's sort of naive to assume that anybody does because the market is the market, right? And like trying to ascribe reasons for anything oftentimes is like a fool's error. But I do think like generally what you're saying is correct. like we we might as well solve this because if this is even, you know, an extreme like black swan or tail risk, it could decimate everything. So, not like I don't have any issue with that.

One question I I have and I guess you kind of touched on this, but maybe you can even dumb this down a bit more to somebody like myself or your average crypto holder or just really anybody interested in tech. What are what is a sign or what is some indication that we myself and everyone else could look out for that indicates this attention is all you need moment? Like I that and I think this is what I get hung up on because it to me it seems like quite binary and it probably shouldn't be but it's like when do they factor 21? Like is that some you know what I mean? Like is there is there something like that where it's like oh okay this is actual progress?

You mentioned the willow chip. I've read about this still like a little bit like unclear to me, but like what is something in in your opinion that oh like there there we go that that's the zero to one one is papers coming out that claim they've been able to figure out either one like huge efficiency speedups in shores or other type of you know these factoring hidden subgroup algorithms two are papers coming out that say I found a way to reduce the number of physical cubits we need to basically have a single logical cubit that is you know sufficiently you know performant by an order of magnitude you know like it's it's a 10 to 100 factor reduction those are the first things I would look out for because I think those will come and then the second thing is once those come people are going to try and build them so like step one do people say Do do physicists come out and say, "Hey, we've like figured out a an order of magnitude improvement in one of these two areas." And two, are they able to actually build the thing and and and and show that? And they're not going to go and build the, you know, cryptographically relevant quantum computer first. Like they're going to build a smaller thing and test that and show that.

And so you will see something factor numbers larger than 21 before you see I think Satoshi's keys break. Now that is like assuming good actors and all of these things which maybe is not always the best assumption in the quantum computing space. One of the things we haven't talked about at all is kind of like geopolitical uh implications.

Okay. Well, that okay, that that's a great segue actually because this is another conversation I had with Rearin and I am inclined to think that so much is at stake here. I mean, my understanding is that like the US nuclear codes could be immediately swiped with a strong enough quantum computer. So, to that end, the NSA has got to be working on this, right? Or aware of this. Why would Yeah, go ahead. Like I tell me what your thoughts are. finish your question actually and I'll ramble about this.

I guess one thought of mine. So, first of all, like okay, we maybe we can assume that the Chinese and the Russians and the NSA and every other Illuminati Bilderberg group is working in stealth on this. Okay. But I think it is reasonable to assume that a an extremely powerful quantum computer does not currently exist. Like I think it's reasonable to assume that. But that is one thing that I've wondered with regards to the hype especially and maybe not so much your company but some of the companies that are raising to build quantum computers in Silicon Valley. I've listened to a number of podcasts of the guys like who've transitioned and it sounds very like I'll just be honest it sounds quite professorcoin type stuff to me like in crypto where there's people working on like advanced cryptography and they all of a sudden have a blockchain right like they've they've left whatever. So it does sound similar. Not to denigrate it by any means, but why do we expect private companies to beat governments to market when it is such high stakes, right? Like I am very much in agreement that private innovation often times is can is more nimble and can surpass anything that nation states or governments are capable of. With that said, this is one of those things where it seems like they would be really focused on this and pouring an immense amount of resources into it. So, I guess that's my first thing is like why don't we just wait for the NSA because they'll do it first or even China. But like what are your thoughts on that?

Yeah, I think uh this is this is this is great. I love organizations and this is a whole can of worms around that. And I think the the way to frame this question is basically like how does US innovation happen versus Chinese innovation. And I think in general US innovation is much more open. It's much more like you know fund people and and see what happens. China is like central planning right and