Hello. I hope we are live now. Really apologize for the delay. Because of the load on the stream, we were breaking several times. We have reset the link. So, let's jump right in because we are starting a little bit late now. The preface to today's presentation is that you will find the deck to be intentionally information-heavy, and w e have done that deliberately as we want to improve the level of transparency and the investors' understanding of our business. This deck will be uploaded as soon as we finish this session, and i f you have any questions on the deck or anything that will not be covered in today's session, please write to us. We will also be uploading a Q&A document, which will be available by tomorrow, and w e will be releasing and answering the questions as we have received a volume of those in batches. With that, I am going to jump straight into the presentation. As I said, the overarching intention for today's presentation is to provide as much visibility into the business that is Hilbert today, and how we make money, how to actually think about the drivers of that revenue-generating engine, and why we believe that where we are today is indeed substantially stronger than at any time previously. At the core of the Hilbert's revenue generation sits asset management. Asset management is primarily made up of two arms. One is the Hilbert Capital, Hilbert's own offered fund and SMA products, including the AUM that we have and will be receiving through Syntetika distribution channel. Then, we have the Xapo Byzantine, which is a platform mandate and a 100% Bitcoin lending vehicle. On your screen, there are specific KPIs that have been spelled out, and w hat we intend to do is provide these KPIs that go into understanding the revenue generation of the asset management to you regularly going forward. One of the things that I will just quickly touch on is the most important, is the fee-paying Hilbert Capital AUM, which is a part of the contracted AUM. Russell, a little bit later in the presentation, will go over the reasons behind how the contracted AUM gets converted into actually deployed and fee-paying AUM. But it suffices to say at this stage that there is typically, in certain cases, a lag from when the contracts are signed as Hilbert becoming the investment manager with the mandate versus when the trading capital actually hits the book and thus starts generating fee. We have also provided the effective blended management fee that we earn on the asset base that we have today, as well as the performance fee, and also provided you how the fee generation on the Xapo side works. In short, the revenue is the Hilbert Capital's or Hilbert's own hedge fund fee- generating AUM's management fee, the performance fee, Xapo mandate fee, and other income. That other income essentially is treasury gains, Hilbert Finance, which is at very early stages, anything we do on proprietary capital trading, and so forth. Moving forward, what I want to flag on this particular slide is that how does our fee model actually break down to? On your screen, you would see that our total fee income, which is essentially the management performance plus the Xapo fee, has more than doubled in the first half of 2026 as compared to the previous year. The total cash revenue, if we include all of the proprietary and treasury, et cetera income has in total still improved by more than or almost 50%. Why is this number relevant? The key point to take away is the change is positive, h owever, that is actually in an upward trajectory. And why is that? That is because when we were scaling back in 2025, beginning 2026, we were coming from an early investor base. When investors are first in line or underwriting initially, they get a much more substantial fee discount, w hereas the newer AUM that we are bringing in is being struck at closer to the 2% and 20% fee level, which is our standard fee charge. Secondly, when the funds and the strategies are at a lower AUM, the operating cost of running a fund can drag down the net return to the LP investor. That then, obviously, demotivates new investors to come into the fund or to retain the investors that you might have in the fund. Thus, in the earlier stages, Hilbert took on a portion of the fund's own operating cost, which was a board cost burden. Now that we have scaled the AUM, that cost burden is falling off. So vis-à-vis Q1, where 45% of the gross management fee was in the waiver, it was only 9% that was waived in Q2, and that will continue to go to zero as we increase our AUM. Finally, you should see an uptick in fee revenue simply because of where the Bitcoin is trading, and I will speak to this in the next slide. However, just in August, the Bitcoin has traded up about 10%, and we have already seen uptick in both management fee and performance fees. On this slide, what I want you to take away is that the sensitivity to Bitcoin price itself plays a part in both the assets that we are reporting and the fee that we are generating. Because in the first half, Bitcoin fell about 25%, our reported assets, which we report in dollar, but the assets themselves are denominated in Bitcoin, a bout $8.8 million was simply the impact of Bitcoin prices being down, i.e., the conversion impact. Similarly, because on the Bitcoin assets, we are earning Bitcoin as fee, it took off about $140,000 from fee income. Just to give you a sense of split, about 62% of the fee income in the first half was earned in Bitcoin. What you would see on your screen, there is a number 14% higher, w hat that is telling you is that if we held Bitcoin at $80,000 price, which was roughly where Q1 was, sorry, beginning of the Q1 was, then, the fee generation would have been $830,000, versus the reported $730,000 in the H1 fee line item. That is an impact of like 14% over that half just by holding the Bitcoin price constant. Now, bear in mind, obviously, Bitcoin has no impact on the dollar-denominated assets that we run. Moving forward, Russell, I will hand this over to Russell to go over performance and give you a sense of how the fee generation is impacted by return itself. Russell? Thanks, Barnali. Good morning, everybody. Apologies again for the late start. I feel your irritation. My daughter is graduating from university this afternoon, so it is as much inconvenient to me as it is for all of you. So, apologies for that. In terms of performance, the performance that the asset management business generates is the most important metric that you, as our shareholders, can follow. We are, in essence, in a competition for capital. And that is not about absolute returns, i t is also about relative returns. As you all know, I am not going to go over 2025, but we outperformed on Basis+, materially outperformed in 2025. But we run a market neutral strategy alongside many other asset management businesses. The problem with a lot of those alternative businesses is they do not do what is on the tin. A market neutral strategy should make money in up markets and in down markets. At the beginning of 2026, back in December, a lot of our quantitative indicators, most importantly our extreme value theory, EVaR, were showing material rises in terms of the amount of risk. Some of you may know how we do this, but we target the left-hand tail of the distribution. It is very complex, but it is highly predictive. And so, we materially reduced risk for the start of 2026. Our EVaR, we would expect running at about a 1.5% EVaR to three standard deviations should generate something like 15%-18% in terms of annualized return. We have been running at about 40% of that, and that has turned out to be a very good decision. So, Basis+ USD is up 7.36% on an annualized basis so far, and Basis+ BTC, as the slide shows, is up 6.44%. Myself and Barnali had drinks with one of the big multi-strats last night here in London. They are flat on the year, and you can see from the benchmarks, the quantitative index is down 13.9% and the market neutral is up 4.2%. We are materially beating the benchmarks and the vast majority of our competitors, and w e know that because we and a number of our SMAs are an allocated manager alongside other managers. So, we are told by our investors how we are doing. I have had a couple of, quite frankly, ridiculous questions from shareholders saying, "How do we expect to survive on 4% net returns?" We do not. That is not what we are targeting. We are hopefully going to hit double digits this year. Gross. I am hoping to hit 10%. But we took a material decision to move risk down and it has put us in a very good spot, and v ery importantly, we have had eight out of eight up months in our USD share class in 2026 and seven out of eight with a tiny drawdown in the BTC share class in one month. We have proved that we can make money in a bear market, and l ast month, obviously, we had a 23%, 25% rally in Bitcoin. We had one of our best months of the year. I do not think the numbers are quite out yet, but HLF was over 1%. We turned some of the risk up in August and we anticipate carrying that on. Our EVaRs have dropped, and we are confident that we can keep these positive returns growing from where they are into the end of the year. In terms of a metric to track, our performance relative to other managers is good and, of course, performance bleeds into more AUM, pipeline growing, and very importantly, performance fees in terms of the impact on our profitability. You can see in the bottom right what a move from 10% to 20% would do in terms of AUM over a 12-month period. So, nothing has changed. We are targeting [audio distortion] and I will get to it a bit later in the presentation. Enigma is looking quite interest [audio distortion] and there are a number of other initiatives where we think that we can grow that into the low 20s without materially compromising our risk-adjusted returns. So, quite frankly, I am pretty happy with how performance is. I understand from a shareholder point of view, the returns are lower than they were last year, but w e have had quite a volatile market, and we have had a material move down in Bitcoin, and we have deliberately been looking to keep our returns positive but more conservative, which is changing into the back end of this year and into next year. That is sort of what I would have to say on performance. Thank you, Russ. Moving forward, o n fee-paying assets, and this is, again, Russ, if you could make a couple of comments on why we have seen a bit of lag between the fee-paying assets and contracted AUM, and why both should be tracked going forward, and w e will be providing that information going forward as well. That will be helpful, and then I will take that over from you. Well, there is a material difference between fee- paying income and contracted income or contracted assets. We have three investors inside the contracted assets pool. They have signed SMAs and have committed investments with Hilbert. Now, that then means that either they need to onboard, so they may sign an SMA early in the process and we need to onboard them, t hey quite often need help in terms of doing that, so o ur business development teams will help where that is concerned. Or some exogenous factor may change. I understand, again, from a shareholder's point of view, you look at contracted assets, and you do not see them moving into fee-paying. We did last month. So, some contracted assets moved into fee-paying via Syntetika. We have one ultra-high-net-worth family office that is inside contracted with a signed SMA. They are going to invest. But subsequent to having signed the SMA, their tax advisors came back and said they needed to put some extra structure in place for the family office to make sure that they were not generating incremental capital gains on an ongoing basis. They have had to go back and do some work in terms of restructuring their structure as to how they will invest, what entity the Bitcoin will come out of. Then, once that is done, they will move the Bitcoin into the already open accounts, and that will move from contracted to fee-earning. The very fact that we have contracted AUM does not mean it is fee-earning. Exogenous things can happen. There can be hold-ups. I understand it is frustrating. It is frustrating for us as well. We get a signed SMA, and we expect it to land at the end of the month, and it ends up taking three months or four months. But if it is sitting in contracted, there is some form of obligation, most probably a signed SMA from the investor that they are going to invest in us, and w e are going to be making all efforts to get that contracted AUM over the line and into fee-earning as quickly as possible. So, that is really the difference, is that there are i's that need to be dotted and t's that need to be crossed subsequent to the commitment being made, and t he business development guys and Elad, and on the ops side are all involved in making that process happen. Thank you. I would just add one additional context. So, we have a pipeline, which is a broad gross pipeline that can include an interest conversation like we are interested in the strategy very early on versus the sort of the real or more shaped pipeline, which is what we report to you, w hich is a pipeline where we have sent a DD, we have had at least couple of calls, and then each individual allocator will also have their own allocation process or investment process, which goes through their investment committee. Later in this presentation, we will speak to you more about the pipeline. But I just wanted to give you a sense of how the process of conversion moves from very early stage, still part of the very large pipeline that we do not report. Then, we have expressed, written, and engaged pipeline, which is what gross pipeline that we report to you. Then, we have contracted AUM, i.e. we have a legally enforceable contract in hand. Then, in certain cases, because of infrastructure need or mandates or specific investor positions, there might be a delay from signing to the money hitting the trading account. With that, on this page, what you are seeing is that our actual fee-generating core, the core that actually puts up the revenue, that went up more than 3x from the beginning of the year in a crypto bear market. You would see that if we take out Bitcoin, i.e. we would have reported to you at constant Bitcoin price every single month, barring obviously January, we would have reported a higher number in USD terms. And that goes to my previous point that there is some impact that is dampening your perception of what the strength of the growth has been in terms of converting pipeline, a nd not to mention, our pipeline has also grown, the reported pipeline, over the same timeframe. Moving on, w hat we want to touch a little bit on this slide on is where we are and what is changing right now. As all of you are aware, there has been nine months' worth of build as well as integration work that has gone on. We now are 90% of the way done. That's just an estimated number, but it's substantially behind us. Where we are is we actually have all of those investments that we had made, creating or making sure the quality of our diversification in the revenue stream is actually being built for future. We are ready to monetize that. I will start with Hilbert Finance, and Russell, you can take over on Enigma and Syntetika, b ut on your screen is very simple models as to how those businesses make money. In the deck, you will also see in the appendix much further information for each of those lines, b ut in short, Hilbert Finance makes money in an unlicensed and licensed environment slightly differently. In an unlicensed environment, which is where we are today because we are in the process of getting the MiCA and payment institution licenses, it does collateralized lending. That is not balance sheet collateral. What it does is it matches the borrowers and lenders and thus manages a loan book where it takes the net interest spread between the borrower and the lender. Once we have the licensing, what we would be able to do, what Nordark previously has done, so we have the build for it. We have all the tech, all of it ready. We have currently paused it because we are in the process of licensing. These operations, such as trading and banking as a service, those operations for Nordark were being done through third-party firms. Obviously, while we are in the licensing process, we have paused those, and o nce we have the licenses, the trading fees and the platform fee or the banking as a service fee will also be accretive. Where we are today, we have created a decentralized lending vault, and we also have an off-chain loan book that we are bringing online. In the, what we call deployment phase, it's not a full launch yet. At that stage today, the loan book sits at $2 million. We expect to scale this over the very short or near term. What is Hilbert Finance doing in addition to obviously giving us an additional revenue stream? It keeps the collateral, which is the crypto asset, and the client flows for the hedge fund side of the business in-house. That is the strategic rationale for that business. Russ, do you want to speak a little about Enigma and Syntetika? Oh, Enigma. Again, I think this has been a source of frustration for shareholders. Obviously, as you all know, we acquired Enigma at the end of last year. Now, it is my job as the CIO who oversees all risk that anything that we bring in is stable, it works, it is integrated into our UI, into our risk management, and we are confident in the repeatability of the alpha that it generates. It has taken a bit longer than I would have liked to get Enigma in. The co-location had to be rebuilt. Some of the code had to be rewritten, which took the first few months of 2026. And there was, to be fair, some small amount of regime change in the stat arb business, which had to be accounted for in the code rewrite. Enigma runs two products. It runs stat arb, and it runs a funding arb. We run a funding arb in Basis+, but it is quite simplistic. The funding arb that Enigma is running is much, much more complicated across about 10 exchanges. Anyway, stat arb, as I am sure a lot of you know, is a very, very hot product in crypto. Winton have just redeemed all of their external shareholders in their stat arb product, and they are only running in-house proprietary capital, about $700 million. It is a product that every investor that we are talking to, existing and new ones, want to get some exposure to. They are very interested in the Enigma stat arb product. Now, you get one shot at things in life, and I understand that it may look like we are being conservative here in terms of launching Enigma, but we want to get it right. It needs to hit the ground running, and we have taken our time. We have put proprietary capital, our own Hilbert balance sheet, into Enigma. We want to be confident that the returns are there. I can tell you, I think we are there. We are very close to allocating out of Basis+ into stat arb and Enigma and launching stat arb as a standalone product. We have investor interest right now in that. Now, the unknown on that is what the capacity is. One thing that the Enigma guys have been doing is they have been focused on generating more stable revenue streams, less switching in and out, which ultimately means that the capacity, we trade across the top 50 coins in the stat arb, that the capacity is probably going to be materially higher than it was for the product that we acquired in 2025. I am very optimistic, very hopeful on Enigma. In the last three months, as you can see there on the slide, it is generating around about 50% annualized. It is looking very, very promising. It could ultimately be a product that ends up dwarfing Basis+. You are going to see some movement. It is going to start generating fee income for us. I know there is a question that is out there. I'm not sure if we're going to cover it on this call or on a written response in terms of how much in terms of assets Enigma needs to generate. But it is looking very optimistic, very promising, and I'm very happy with Enigma. And apologies for being conservative in terms of launching this, but it has to be right when it goes, and I'm comfortable now that it is. So, we're very close to getting something going there and bringing some external investors into Enigma. Clearly, of course, Hilbert as a group, we want to have our own proprietary capital inside it as well because we generate 100% of the fees. So, Enigma's getting quite interesting. Syntetika is live, as I'm sure you all know. It was two weekly redemptions. We've now gone to three weekly redemptions. It launched with a bit north of $10 million. You'll see on the pipeline slide that, you are going to see some movement out of the committed and into fee- generating from Enigma for the end of, sorry, for Syntetika for the end of this month. It is a product that is generating very good returns. The feedback I'm getting from the Syntetika guys is they're very optimistic. There seems to be some really good conversations going on, and v ery importantly, I'll just make the point on Hilbert Finance and on Enigma and Syntetika, the stuff is built now. Our cost base has been materially higher in the first half of 2026, and it will be in the second half because Enigma is live and working and about to allocate too. Syntetika is live. All the infrastructure is built. Same with Hilbert Finance. So, our costs on these, the infrastructure build there is collapsing there, and these are going to start turning from being cost basis into profitability basis quite quickly, I think. So, Enigma and Syntetika both looking good. We are live with Syntetika. Assets have fed through without any sort of problem on-chain into our trading platforms, and we generated returns for people that have got Wrapped Bitcoin in Syntetika in August and will carry on doing that in September. Thank you, Russ. This slide is about the current liquidity. There seem to have been some misunderstanding out there. We wanted to give you a breakdown on what liquidity is cash on hand, what is cash-like, and what is readily realizable as of 30th of June. Our gross reported liquidity is $5.5 million. That consists of bank cash, i.e. fiat. We are a crypto firm. A lot of our liquidity is, or settlement is done in stablecoin, which is also cash for us. We have that on our exchange account that is separate from the bank cash. We receive fee after the fund's NAV is struck after a month end. Therefore, some of the management fee, which obviously comes from the fund account that we manage onto the investment manager's account, missed the quarter- end or the month-end cutoff because one has to wait for the NAV strike. Then, finally, the inbound wires that miss the cutoff, wires from the capital raise. So, a number should not be just the bank cash. What you should look at, and we will going forward make these much more visible and easily accessible to you, but all these four components should form the total liquidity that the firm has access to. This slide is with regards to how much it costs to run the business in cash terms. On your screen, we have split out for the actual first half, the cash and non-cash operating costs. As you will see, and we have already touched upon, Russell and I earlier, we had a number of non-recurring build-related costs still in the first half, which we will start to see come down, truly come down in Q4, the first full quarter on the new cost base, but y ou will start to see the take down even from Q3. The cost back base mix is provided to you on the screen as well, and o ne thing that I wanted to address is that even at the new cost base mix that we have provided on screen, a number of those things are not critical to the firm's operation. There is a lot of synergy that can be done. We run trading as an example, trading in Enigma. We run trading on Hilbert Capital. We use still, in many cases, two different, when I say infrastructure, I mean service providers, j ust as an example, combining and bringing those two onto the same platform releases or gives us cost efficiency. Those things take a bit of time to realize over time. We are not cutting cost or cutting businesses or revenue lines for which we have actually invested. Russ, do you want to take over from me on the pipeline? Yes, I will. I think, again, there has been quite a bit of confusion, and this is solely down to us, I think, but pipeline is more an art than a science. There has been some confusion over what pipeline is and how realizable, and in terms of what time frames pipeline converts through the different stages. So, I just want to be absolutely crystal as to what pipeline is. So, when we have an investor who expresses an interest, and by the way, pipeline is not run by me, i t is run by business development, investor relations. These guys have the relationships and a number of the probability calls that go into the pipeline, they all come out of investor relations and business development. But when we get an investor that expresses an interest, it goes into the Hilbert investor database. If the business development guys determine that the inquiry is real, they will have a conversation with an investor. If they determine that conversation is real and that someone is actually looking to potentially allocate, not necessarily to us, but into the space in which we're operating, it will then join the pipeline. There will be a call on that in terms of what is the likely size of the investment, and i n general, I know of at least two bigger investments that are in our pipeline. They've been marked at half of where the actual investment would be. So, there is a little bit of a discretionary call from business development guys in terms of the size of the allocation. That then goes into what we call our pipeline. A number that we don't report and maybe that we should report, and I will discuss this with Barnali at some point, is the probability weighted pipeline. What then happens is the business development guys go and say, "Well, this person is well down." That probability can change as an investor moves down the process in terms of onboarding with us. That generally, most of the time will involve a call with the investment management team, which is me, Jesse, et cetera, et cetera. It'll probably involve a call with Elad and on ops and what have you. But as that process progresses, the probability weighting against a particular investor goes up or goes down, or they get removed from the pipeline. So, the pipeline that we report at $292 million is the amount of investors that are legitimately looking to potentially allocate with us without any probability weighting attached to it. There is a probability weighted number. I'm not going to give it right now. I'm not sure if it's appropriate if I do, but I think probably we should give that number going forward. Then, what happens is if we get down that process, an investor then says, "Right, we commit." That then moves out of pipeline and into the committed bucket that you see. Then, we would expect within a short period of time, which I've dealt with earlier, that that committed would generate and turn into fee-generating income. But it's out of our hands. It's exogenous. Different things can happen, and that might scale up, it might scale down. Quite often, we have an investor that went live for a relatively small amount in the Cayman fund this week, in the beginning of the month, and t hey went in with a few hundred thousand. They are potentially a $10 million-$20 million allocation, but they want to run a small amount of capital for a month or two just to see that the pipeline works, that we return the sort of numbers that we say we're going to return. And that's very normal. So, we have a movement then from pipeline into committed and committed into fee-generating. Now, you can also get someone that completely skips the pipeline. You're going to see, I believe, something on that for the 1st of October, because if we have an existing investor that adds, which we believe our biggest investor is going to add, that won't be in the pipeline, and o ur actual investors and any AUM that we have from investors are not in any way included in the pipeline. Then, in terms of conversion, the conversion of the pipeline clearly is, t here are a number of factors here, which as I said at the very beginning, make it more of an art than a science. Th ere is a seasonality concept, like, people generally, and you will see it on our estimates for Q4, that is highly influenced by our experience with seasonality. That generally people do not allocate at the very back end of the year. They will allocate at the beginning of the year. So, there is a seasonality aspect. There is obviously market dynamic aspect. And this pipeline, unfortunately, in a bear market, while we have generated positive returns, there has been this rotation of capital that has gone out of crypto and into AI and into gold and into a variety of other things, and t hat has meant that the pipeline to an extent has stagnated a bit, and that we have not moved through as many investors out of pipeline and into committed as we would like. Now, what I can say is from obviously conversations with both Anna and with Ashley, who run business development, we are seeing a reversal of that at the moment. We're seeing, and my family office, myself, I am doing it as well. I have sold some of my AI exposure, some of my gold exposure, and I want to go back into crypto, and I think crypto is undervalued now relative to that, and a lot of people seem to agree with me, and that capital rotation is coming back into crypto. We are seeing that in terms of both new conversations that are starting and a little bit more energy that is coming from relatively stale investors that might be in the pipeline. So, that graph there that you are seeing is showing very, very conservative estimates outside of committed capital moving into fee-generating and ups from existing investors. They are not included in those numbers. So, those numbers there are conversion pipeline into fee-generating, what we estimate. You can see obviously from Q4 that it is very conservative, which is an element of the seasonality. That could obviously be very different from what actually happens, and we could get some nice allocations in there. One thing I would also like to address is I keep hearing, and I have had a number of messages and DMs that I have been saying in podcasts and what have you, that we should be at $1 billion by now. I would love someone to point me that quote that I have made because I have not made that quote. We can control the things that we can control. We can control the amount of risk we take. We can control our responses in dealing with investors. But at the end of the day, the pipeline is going to convert because an investor wants to actually generate returns on the Bitcoin that they are holding or the U.S. stablecoins that they are holding. Many exogenous factors affect the estimates of the conversion of that pipeline. I understand, to shareholders, that it can be frustrating, and it has been frustrating to us. We have dealt really with eight months of a bear market, which has definitely held that process up. Now, I am hoping, I do not know how many of you subscribe to the weekly traders' call, but we believe and our indicators show, telling us that the bottom is probably in in Bitcoin and this capital rotation is beginning. Hopefully, we see a move back up in Bitcoin. One of the second derivative effects of that will be hopefully much higher turnover in our pipeline as it moves out of pipeline into committed and into fee-paying. Russell? Yeah, I do not really have a great, t his is basically saying a breakdown. The business development guys actually break down the type of investment, and that is on the left. We have a number of you are aware, we have got a couple of very big strategic investors, o ne of which is really significant amount of AUM. We could easily be putting that into committed. They have told us they are going to allocate to us, but at the moment, it is a custodian issue that some of you may be aware there is a bit of a territory fight going on amongst a number of the custodians. One custodian does not want a particular high-profile investor to actually go through a secondary custodian to get to ours, et cetera. Some of that stuff is being resolved, and it is being resolved. They would sit in the institutional prime and custody bucket that is there on the side. You can see a breakdown of how we are basically on our database in the pipeline of how we are allocating the types of investors. On the right-hand side, you can see how many of those are in what type of stage. Business development do also produce a quarterly estimate probability weighted. Again, I will probably have a conversation with Barnali as to what type of visibility we do on that. It is a double-edged coin, this. I really do understand shareholder investor frustration here, because as I say again, it is an art and a science. We can give you too little or we can give you too much, and then the expectations become too large. We have got a number of late-stage, as I say from there, 29% of late-stage investors. They are high-quality institutional investors, and we would expect to start seeing movement in the pipeline. But that decision is not ours. It comes from the investor, and a number of exogenous factors will influence it. Thank you, Russ. Moving forward. Apologies for too many numbers on the slide, but this will be, as I said, with you guys, so you will be able to review this and come back if there are any questions on this. What this slide shows you is how the first half was actually in terms of fee generation and cash OpEx, the first two columns. Then, the section on the right is what we call budget or our assumptions currently based on pipeline landing, a full-year gross return going forward, and how would that then look in terms of revenue generation and in terms of the new cash base, sorry, the cost base that I have mentioned in the previous slides. The takeaway here is how we assume the pipeline landing and what the returns are and the mix between various parts of the revenue. The breakeven number that I consistently get asked on falls somewhere in the total AUM of about $165 million- $200 million. What you would see that given the assumptions that we have given you in the previous slides, by Q1, we are essentially much of the way there in terms of carrying the new cash base. In terms of sensitivity, what additional sort of $50 million assets, assuming current level of fee and not higher, it adds anywhere between $350 million- $450 million of revenue per quarter. I hope this will provide a little bit more visibility and. Not million, Barnali, thousand. I wish it was million. Sorry. Yes. Thank you so much. $350,000-$ 450,000. To sum it up, what we want to consistently provide are sort of these KPIs in addition to the KPIs that I began with. Our fee-paying AUM, which is what generates revenue currently without taking into account any Hilbert Finance, Syntetika platform, or Enigma-related income, w e have grown that core substantially. Our fee income has been reflected in terms of growth accordingly. We anticipate our cash burn to be coming down, and we have provided an estimate that we currently have, and we believe we have enough liquidity to be executing this plan. What we obviously need, and that is what underpins the investment, is converting our pipeline into fee-paying assets. I am deliberately being conservative in the fact that we are excluding anything to do with any of the platforms that we have spoken to you about. At the end of this deck that you will have a number of appendix that will go over further details on each of the platform. A question that seemed to have confused certain investors regarding the top-line gross revenue presentation differential, which is largely due to an accounting treatment and has absolutely zero impact on the margin or the cash of the business, t hat has been elaborated to you explicitly on that slide. And there are a bunch of other information regarding how we see Hilbert Finance, s orry, I'm going too fast, h ow we see the market that's being addressed by Hilbert Finance and how the income generation would potentially look like, and some more information regarding Enigma as well. In the interest of time, I will leave those to be reviewed by the investor base, and please write any questions regarding that. I'm going to stop sharing my screen, and v ery quickly, I know we're almost an hour, but we want to still go through some of the questions, and we've received a large set of questions, so please bear with us as we provide you written responses if we haven't covered it today. So, maybe, I start with you, Russell, and then I will have some questions for Jonathan, and in the end, I will take some questions myself as well. One of the questions that we have received is: Why does an institutional allocator choose Hilbert over a larger crypto manager? Russell, what would you answer? Okay, that is a good question. In the traditional asset management business, larger is better, of course. There are not that many particularly large asset managers that are in the crypto space. When I was at Cambridge, those $500 million allocations do not exist in crypto, so they tend to be quite a lot smaller. Necessarily, the size is not anything like as important as the investment team, the transparency, the ability to execute. There are a whole number of boxes, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which I've talked about a lot, you know, t he durability, and the foundation on the ops and the legals, all those types of things. So, the fact that Brevan Howard's performance has not been great, performance is obviously a big factor, but the team is a big factor and the fact that we've got a listed business, and we have to be transparent about our AUM and our returns, are much more important than the absolute size. But I would say in the universe of asset management businesses and the people that we're competing against, we're certainly not a small asset manager, so I think there's a number of factors. If a pension plan wanted to allocate $100 million of stablecoin into something, quite often, they will be restricted by they can't be more than a certain percentage of the fund, and that would count against a smaller manager as opposed to a larger manager. But I think there are more important factors that people are looking at, and I think in terms of box-ticking exercise on that, I think we stack up very, very well. And I think we've proved that. We've got one of the best, highest quality sovereign wealth funds in the world invested with us, and that took quite a lot of due diligence passing to get there. So, yeah, I think that's what I'd say on that one. Thank you. I'm going to quickly move through these questions. The next question is centered around Enigma. Again, you have spoken to some parts of it, but can you please give some more thoughts around expected timeline, and also comment if we would have additional cost to get to those timelines? Well, on the second part, no. In fact, costs are going down. Our Enigma cost base, from where it was in terms of two or three months ago, is down about 40%, a nd there is no reason for the cost base to rise on Enigma. So, Enigma has been recoded, rebuilt, co-located, and it's good to go. It'll be a profitable business line for us with around, assuming that the returns stand up that we're now seeing, SEK 5 million will probably make Enigma profitable to Hilbert. So, and the capacity we think has gone, m y personal opinion is that the alpha on Enigma will not degrade under SEK 20 million. Now, Magnus is leading the Enigma side from the Hilbert side. He believes the capacity without degradation of the alpha is materially higher than that. But in terms of profitability on Enigma, SEK 5 million on, and we can probably, that is based on we can probably get 2% and 30% on Enigma. Stat arb is such a hot product that we haven't decided on where we're going to launch, but that is a very, very achievable fee base on Enigma, and SEK 5 million makes it profitable. And I think that we can get there. Thank you, Russ. Sorry, I am going to cut you off because we do not have time for very long. Sorry. Okay. Answers, but we will, of course, provide transcripts, and I will ensure these questions are in the Q&A document that goes up as well. And final question to you, Russ. There seems to be some confusion that there has been a recent AUM decline. Certainly, last two months, we have not seen the type of growth we saw in the first few months of the year. How much of that reporting, as in Bitcoin price, how much of that is client flows? What are you seeing in client flows? Can you just position that for people to understand what the reality is? Well, I am as confused by that comment as anybody else because we have had month-on-month increases in AUM. I do get messages from investors saying, "Well, why is the AUM going down?" It is almost all entirely due to the price in Bitcoin in terms of how that translates into dollars. None of our shareholder base would have seen the impact that we are going to get the other way in August because we have had a 23% rally in Bitcoin. So, those numbers are going to go up, but they are all down to that. We have had all year, we have had one redemption, which has had nothing to do with us. It was an internal decision from the client to scale back on its overall crypto exposure across multiple asset managers. One redemption all year, and we are getting constant subscriptions. And there is a slide in there which I think we have talked to which shows that already, Barnali. Yeah. The slide six I would point to, which just shows at constant Bitcoin price what is the actual addition in the AUM, and also, obviously, we have talked about the fee in relation to Bitcoin price. I am going to move to Jonathan now for some comments. Jonathan, one of the questions that we have received is when the board talks about, or what is the board's perspective on when we as a firm come out and say we have sufficient capital? How does the board comment, does that assessment assume future equity issuance, use of future financing, asset sales, external financing? Can you give some comment on how the board assesses these things? Yeah. That is pretty simple. Look, when the board states that working capital is sufficient for the next 12 months, which we just did, the assessment relies on really three things. It is relatively straightforward. The liquidity we have at the time, the anticipated costs we have for the next 12 months including the reductions we have committed to, and the anticipated revenue. If you look at the presentation, you have all the numbers that you need. Slide eight has the available liquidity today at $5.5 million. Slide nine outlines the anticipated cost including the cost reductions that Barnali has gone through. And slide 12 lays out our revenue targets as a range as we onboard contracted AUM as Russ went through and the pipeline converts. So, together, the liquidity based on those three factors lasts a full 12 months. To answer the question directly as you said, Barnali, we are not assuming any asset sales. There are no financings that we have not already signed, and there is no new equity raise. The financing facilities that we have actually act as a cushion and sit above that plan and are support. As we stand today, the company is fully financed for the next 12 months. I would just reiterate, fee-paying assets have gone up 340%, fee income has gone up 116%. So, we feel very comfortable where we stand today and as we look out over the timeframe that we are looking out for 12 months, the liquidity position is pretty good. Great. The next question, and this is likely going to be a lot of numbers, but could you comment on the fact that how many shares were issued under the financing facility this year? At what average price? And did that selling contribute to the recent price action? Yeah. Okay. All the numbers are of course in the announcements, and you can piece them together, but I'll just tick through them here. For the first quarter, we converted, we issued 3,146,000 shares to reduce the convertible notes, and t hat reduces a dilutive overhang that we have on the stock, and that priced between SEK 5.60 and SEK 7.41. There were a number of shares that were issued at various times, and that's obviously significantly above where we are today, and that's a positive, a net positive. In May and July, we have a direct issuance. We issued 13 million shares at almost SEK 4 where Helena came in with a $2 million commitment, and three other U.S. investors came in as well. Then, in August, we issued another 2 million shares at approximately SEK 4. So, that in total, if you add all that up, that's about 18 million shares for a total of SEK 61 million for new capital that's come in, a ll significantly above where we're priced today. Even at the low end, it's still 71% above where the stock is trading today. Then, to answer your question directly about whether the selling contributed to Monday's share price fall, l ook, the last issuance we did on the facility was August 10th, so that was three weeks before, and t he fall came on August 31st, and that's the day that we published the second quarter results. So, beyond that, the facility documents have a fair amount of protection for the company. We have a floor conversion price, we have daily volume limits, we have advance notice that we're needed to be provided, and we have the right to inspect the counterparty's brokerage position at any time. So, we've got several safeguards that are in place to protect the company from the facility putting downward pressure at times like this where there's low levels. So, I would say no. Thank you. The next question is relating to the U.S. listing. Could you make some comments around how much incremental expenditure do you expect the U.S. listing readiness to have, and a potential U.S. listing to require before completion? And how are we thinking about U.S. listing as. Yeah. From a strategic point of view? Yeah. I noticed that there were several questions as it related to this, and I think there's a lot of confusion about IPO costs and so on. I think it bears repeating again that the company is a public company today. So, very different from a private company looking to go public. All the necessary infrastructure and systems are already in place that a normal private company would need to bring on that is a material part of the cost, a substantial amount of the cost. I'd say 60%- 70% of the costs of the standard U.S. listing process is bringing all those processes and infrastructures in line for a public company. So, r eally, for Hilbert, you're down to two expenditures, which are an audit and legal. Both of those expenditures are managed in stages, so it's not a set amount that's set up front. They're variable, and they depend on various factors, and i t depends on how far the process runs, what the response is from the SEC and NASDAQ, et cetera. But in general, the audit is about 1/4 to 1/3 of the price of a standard audit because the proposal for the auditors now is to review the work that PwC does, has already performed, and then just up audit it into a PCAOB audit. So, that work is already underway, substantially done, and should be finished in the next 90 days, and th ese costs are fully accounted in the budget, so you won't see a tick up. And the legal, same situation. The legal costs are about 1/2, and then, they're deferred until the completion of the IPO and discounted heavily if we don't move forward. So, it's not going to materially impact the cost structure. I understand the perception that a lot of people have, because it normally is a big cost that a lot of companies do incur, but yo u have to remember those companies are typically private and going forward. As to the question of why it is important to go public or what that process is, I think in my experience, it adds a tremendous amount of value to all the stakeholders of the company. A U.S. listing puts us in front of a much larger pool of investors than a Swedish small cap can reach, and it makes sell-side research possible. A lot of U.S. investors that we have had a lot of discussions with over the last nine months have charters that restrict them to U.S.-listed companies, and then again, companies that are covered by sell-side research. So, having constructive discussions with those investors and the banks and the research analysts about coverage once we listed is a benefit to all the stakeholders of the company. We feel that that is a valid objective for the company to follow, especially given that most of the costs are baked in, and it is just an incremental cost that the company has to incur to go public. Thank you. I will just add a little more for, because I have received questions regarding timeline here. Where we are today, the U.S. listing that we are discussing, it is a readiness exercise for us rather than some sort of, we have, i t is not an imminent event. What the business currently is squarely focused on is we are focused on building scale and revenue. Obviously, alongside, as you have seen, we are improving our governance and operating visibility, et cetera. All that is to say that we are doing this for when the time is right, the company is then in a position, and the board of directors can evaluate whether a U.S. listing is being done at that particular time, and if it is done from a position of strength. There will be a number of deciding factors ultimately in terms of timeline decision, which will be a combination of either commercial traction, where the financial maturity of the company is, and obviously, the broader market conditions as well. It is not something that is in the front burner is how I would leave the investors with. Thank you, Jonathan. Those are all the questions. I am going to run through mine very quickly. Again, apologize, we are running well over one hour now, but I still want to take some of the questions. One is relating to the cash burn, and also the new guidance that we are providing in the deck as well as in the press release. The question is, which initiatives will get deprioritized if they do not demonstrate near-term revenue contribution? Would that essentially impact anything that is key person or critical to the business? The second part I have already answered in the presentation. Absolutely not. These are things relating to the build and integration as well as synergy farming, so w e do not expect any hampering of the actual business of the firm. In terms of the first part of the question, each of the platform now runs on a disciplined budget, and they are measured on their own numbers. We have spent the money that we have spent because we see significant potential in these new business lines. We are pragmatic. Should something change, of course, there will be evaluation based on that, and going forward, you are going to see the KPIs for each of these businesses as well. There are a couple of questions regarding Hilbert Finance. I will just go through them quickly. The questions are, what are the current revenue contribution and/or other concrete milestones for the next 6- 12 months, and when does it become meaningfully accretive? The clear, near term, or I would say intermediate term target is for the loan book balance to reach $100 million for the collateralized lending part. If we say that the net [inaudible] or the spread income on that $100 million is 50 basis points, it is typically anywhere between 50 basis points- 150 basis points. Hilbert Finance will cover all of its operation at that level. Above that, of course, at a certain amount of scale, it becomes meaningfully accretive. We are at a very early stage, so we will see how this scales, but we are quite optimistic about our ability to scale this. Second question is, of the previously communicated $2.5 billion lending pipeline, which was part of the press release at the time of the acquisition, how much represents active counterparties that have passed onboarding and credit assessment, and how much is earlier stage opportunity pipeline? There is some confusion here. The $2.5 billion figure reflects the demand that Nordark have observed, and we currently observe from prospective borrowers. It is not a commitment to the fund in the way that we present pipeline for you for asset management, where there is actual due diligence ongoing. Within that figure, however, a portion is a set of counterparties that have already completed onboarding in terms of credit assessment. They are, in other words, able to, they're ready to draw once the funding is matched. The remainder is earlier stage interest that Nordark and us, now Hilbert Finance, have seen where the full onboarding credit assessment is yet to be completed. Of course, we are not disclosing the breakdown at this stage, given we are still very, very early stage, but w e can confirm that the onboarded proportion will exceed our loan book target of $100 million. Right now, the limiting factor for us to convert any kind of pipeline when it comes to Hilbert Finance is our funding capacity rather than any kind of lack of market demand or borrower demand. So, what we are currently working on as number one priority is securing that funding. Another question was asked, why have the strong strategy performances not translated into group result? I would begin by answering that if you look at the numbers factually, the group as a whole, as a business, regardless of where the stock price is today versus when the stock was at SEK 10 or SEK 15, the business is at a much stronger footing, especially when it comes to asset management. The very fact that you are still currently not out of the crypto bear market, one thing that is quite evident without any doubt is product market fit. We are continuing to see significant or pretty strong institutional demand, which is the client that asset management is going after. Now, institutional clients take time to convert, and as Russ has pointed out, we are subject to the broader market, we are subject to seasonality and other such things, which is exogenous to the business. I would stress that we feel we have displayed the fact that we can raise AUM, and we feel we are actually at a stronger stage given having gone through a bad set of market conditions with the type of numbers, both in terms of returns and in terms of product construction that we have. We can raise the targets that we have provided to you. The final question is around communication cadence going forward. We will provide specifically the KPIs that I have laid out in the deck with consistency, and those will be reported on a regular basis going forward. I take the criticism on board very seriously regarding the inconsistencies that you have faced in the past, and we will correct that going forward. We will be more consistent, and you will see the cadence from us go up both in terms of IR responsiveness and just general market communication. As I said, today is the first of the shareholders updates live that we are doing. We will strive to do this every month for the rest of the year. So, you will have a lot more opportunity to talk to us and ask questions, not just here and obviously email us. We will get back to you in written format as well. I will try to take one or two questions just because we are now. Yeah. I have a. [crosstalk] o'clock. I have a daughter graduating, Barnali. Can we? Yes, two questions. I will then let everyone go. There was a question on if asset management leg is already making money. The answer is asset management was breakeven in Q1. It was slightly short of breakeven in Q2. It is reliant on Bitcoin price quite a lot. It fluctuates. But with the newer cost base as well as just the new Bitcoin price, we can firmly say that it is in the green. Breakeven, we have already provided, and that is just to remove any confusion. That is for the full company, not just asset management leg. How long have the late-stage pipelines been in the late stage? It depends on the client. I would say i t typically takes somewhere between six to eight months to convert in a truly institutional allocator. Family offices, large family offices and fund allocators, i.e. other funds or fund of funds, take a little less time. But overarching factor in terms of conversion is the macro condition of the market and also the seasonality. Those are the two factors that kind of determine. I am going to leave it here just because we have gone quite long. Please expect a Q&A document which will address additional questions, and please continue to send us questions at the email that is on your screen right now. Going forward, we will strive to write to as many of you as possible, and we will also upload additional batches of Q&A. With that, thank you so much, and apologies again for the late start. But we hope this has provided you with additional clarity and transparency, and we will strive to keep to that level going forward. Thank you very much, everybody.