Greetings and welcome to the Second Quarter 2025 Investor Call for CMSG, the Consensus Mining & Seigniorage Corporation, which is now trading on the OTCQX Premier Marketplace under the ticker CMSG. Thank you for joining us today on August 13, 2025. We have the full crew today on the call: Alun Williams, President; Mark Herndon, Chief Financial Officer; and Kevin McRae, our Chief Technology Officer. Also joining us today is our Chief Strategy Officer, Murray Stahl. Alun, Mark, and Kevin will review our second quarter 2025 results, which was announced last week and can be accessed via the Consensus Mining & Seigniorage Corporation and the OTCQX Premier Marketplace websites. Murray will then share his remarks before we jump to our live Q&A session. This call is recorded, and a replay will be available. To request a replay, please email ir@consensusmining.com. Before I turn it over to our speakers today, we remind you that the following discussion, including responses to your questions, apply only as of today. The information on this call should not be construed to be a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular security or investment fund. The opinions referenced on this call today are not intended to be a forecast of future events or a guarantee of future results. It should not be assumed that any of the transactions referenced today have been or will prove to be profitable, or that future investment decisions will be profitable or will equal or exceed the past performance of these investments. With that, [Kenz], I'll pass it on to you and looking forward to your remarks. Thank you very much, Agustin. Thank you, everybody, for joining us for our Second Quarter 2025 Investor Call for Consensus Mining & Seigniorage Corporation. During the call, Mark Herndon, our Chief Financial Officer, will start with a review of our 2025 second- quarter financial results. Next, I will share some general comments and some market updates about what's going on in the crypto mining space. Kevin McCray, our Chief Technology Officer, will follow that with an update specifically on our operations within Consensus Mining. Finally, as Agustin mentioned, our Chief Strategy Officer, Murray Stahl, has joined us, and he'll be available to answer questions that people may have about Consensus Mining, its strategy, and where we're headed. I will hand it over to Mark to discuss the financials for the quarter. Okay, great. Thanks, Alun. In the interest of time, I'll only briefly highlight a few themes, including our results this quarter. Overall, the second quarter was a continuation of what we have seen the last several quarters as the company has continued to accumulate Bitcoin from mining with a relatively stable cost structure. The quarterly and year-to-date revenues are lower in comparison to 2024, whose results included mining rewards that were prior to the April 2024 halving event. That event decreased the quantity of Bitcoin rewards that we were receiving, but the impact to our revenue line item was partially offset in 2025 by the higher average value of Bitcoin. Also note that our scrypt mining has resulted in higher Dogecoin revenues in 2025 than in 2024, and that has indirectly resulted in additional Bitcoin accumulation that we'll discuss more in a little bit. Our hosting costs to mine Bitcoin have remained consistent at approximately $0.7 million for the second quarter, and $1.4 million for the year-to-date period. Similarly, the company's general and administrative costs have continued to be modest at $0.2 million for the quarter and $0.3 million for the year-to-date period. The largest financial impact to the company's financial statements for the quarter continues to be the unrealized gains resulting from the appreciation in the value of Bitcoin, which increased 30% in the quarter and 54% year- to- date. Overall, the changes in the value of digital assets resulted in $8.2 million of unrealized gains for the quarter and $4.4 million for the year-to-date period. With that, I'll turn it over to Kevin for an operations update. Great. Good afternoon. I hope everyone's doing well. We didn't make any major changes to our operations over the quarter, but as we always discuss historically, we continue with our strategy of deploying our capital at a measured pace, with a recent focus on increasing our scrypt hash rate. I'll keep my comments brief to make sure we keep enough time for our other updates. At the end of the second quarter, we had approximately 155 PH/s mining on the Bitcoin network. During the quarter, we retired a small amount of our hash rate due to some older machines that were unprofitable and/or unrepairable. We added approximately 700 GH/s of hash rate to our Litecoin and Dogecoin mining fleet, bringing our total hash rate to around 600 GH/s at the end of the quarter. As we've mentioned in the past, BITMAIN equipment is the wide majority of mining equipment that's out there, mining both the Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin networks. We've been seeing some new smaller manufacturers enter the space, which we think is good for CMSG and for the industry as a whole. We recently deployed a small batch of scrypt miners from a newer manufacturer and have been having a good experience so far. We also have a batch of non-BITMAIN Bitcoin machines that we've been running for about a year from a different manufacturer that have also been running well since we've deployed them. Both manufacturers' machines have been stable, and they've been responsive when we need repairs, upgrades, parts, and any sort of support. We're continuing to monitor the market for machines, and I'm encouraged to see some new manufacturers entering the space. Time will tell if they can scale up and provide some true competition, but seeing these new entrants to the market has been encouraging. Also, just to follow up on one of my updates from our last call, as I had mentioned, we were in the process of moving our scrypt miners to a new pool. We're always looking at our mining pool options and making sure that we're on the most robust and most cost-effective platforms. During the second quarter, as I had mentioned, we had moved our Litecoin and Dogecoin machines to a pool that was built and is operated by a company that we know well and have been partnering with for a number of years. We were also able to negotiate a favorable pool fee and moved our machines in small batches during the second quarter. The pool continues to be stable, and we've had a good experience so far. On the Bitcoin front, we've been using a well-known U.S.-based pool for the last several years and are continuing to have a good experience there. As always, we'll continue to monitor the landscape and make sure we're mining on the most efficient and stable platforms. That's all I had in terms of operational updates, and I look forward to giving another update in a few months. Thanks. Thank you very much, Kevin, and thank you, Mark. I just wanted to have some general comments before we move on to our Q&A. Agustin mentioned this earlier. As many of you are aware, the ability to transfer shares of Consensus Mining to shareholders' brokerage accounts started a few weeks ago, and trading has now commenced. Trading started at $45 per share, which was roughly in line with the book value at the time, and it has traded in a range from $43- $80 on relatively light volume. There is a spread out there, and hopefully the volume will increase and the spread will tighten. We have seen some orders which we think we'll probably put out there as market orders, which might have not gotten the best pricing, but I would always encourage people to use limits when the spreads are a little wide and the volume is a little thin. Having said that, seeing the shares start to trade was a welcome sight after a very long road to get to this point. Our shareholders are aware that we've been working hard for quite some time in an attempt to get here, and we are finally here, and we thank you for your patience in getting here. On the business side of things, during the second quarter of 2025, as Mark mentioned, Bitcoin prices rose around 30% to approximately $107,000 per coin. Since the end of the quarter, the price has risen even further, trading right now at about $122,000 per coin, which is another 14% increase since the end of the second quarter. The company has continued to accumulate additional Bitcoin. We ended the quarter with about 334 Bitcoin, and we've been adding that, as mentioned before, in a gradual and efficient manner. While our operations primarily mine and hold Bitcoin, we have also continued to grow our scrypt mining capacity, as Kevin mentioned. Converting some of the proceeds from the Dogecoin that we earn from our scrypt mining to Bitcoin is essentially our strategy, whereby we are indirectly mining Bitcoin using more profitable equipment, which we expect to actually have a longer shelf life or useful life. There is also associated with that less risk to that mining profitability impact when it comes to the Bitcoin halving. The Bitcoin halving is expected in a little under three years, and that will significantly impact the profitability of any Bitcoin equipment. There is a halving within Litecoin. It's a similar halving structure, a similar monetary policy. However, Dogecoin does not have a halving policy. With Litecoin being approximately 10% of the scrypt mining rewards, the impact of a halving of Litecoin is somewhat marginal for the scrypt mining equipment, and this is one of the reasons why we've been investing in that equipment over and above Bitcoin equipment, because of the lack of impact of the halvings down the road. Bitcoin hash price, which, as we've talked about before, is the measure of U.S. dollar revenues per petahash of mining processing power, ended the quarter at around $58 per PH/s per day. This rose from about $45 per PH/s per day at the beginning of the quarter. If you recall, this has essentially reversed the impact of the fall in hash price that took place in the first quarter. Mining equipment prices for the current generation of Bitcoin and the scrypt mining equipment have remained relatively stable over the quarter. There really weren't any major new equipment releases since our last call. If you recall, in the last call, it was recently announced that BITMAIN was going to start shipping their S23 models. That's not going to happen until the beginning of the first quarter of 2026. None of the other major equipment manufacturers have announced any new and improved equipment that they're looking to start selling at this time. We obviously will continue to monitor the equipment space and look to acquire equipment that we believe is going to last the longest. We generally prefer buying the most efficient and productive equipment, but we do balance that out with the cost of that equipment because it does come at a premium. We continue to add hash rate at a measured pace and using the most efficient equipment and profitable equipment, as I said, that's on the market. The idea is we're going to position the company well for future shifts in the cycle and different profitability levels and difficulty levels of the network. This means that we continue to focus on acquiring the merge mining or the scrypt mining equipment at this time. With that update, in conjunction with Mark and Kevin, Agustin, I will hand it back to you, and we can take some questions from the shareholders on the call. Agustin, this is Murray. Could I ask myself a question or two? Would it be okay? I'm going to answer my own question. Would that be okay to kick it off? The floor is yours. Okay. I'm going to ask myself the following, I guess it's two questions. First question is sort of numerical. When you started Consensus Mining, how many Bitcoin do you have and how many do you have right now? Why is that significant? You can correct me, I'm going to use some numbers, Alun, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe when we started, we had XBT XBT 114. Is that correct? Yes, that sounds correct. Okay, good. Now we have over XBT 337, probably closer to XBT 338 at the moment than it is XBT 337, but whatever. We also have well in excess of LTC 11,000. We didn't really triple our Bitcoin, but we came pretty close to tripling our Bitcoin. We tripled our Bitcoin. Now we're into significance of what this means. We tripled it and we didn't draw down our cash and we didn't issue any shares. I don't believe of the various companies, either the two main genres of competitor companies, either the mining companies or the treasury companies did anything like that. I don't think anybody did anything like that. What's the significance of it? There are three ways now you can invest in Bitcoin in a simplistic way. Number one, you can buy a Bitcoin ETF. Number two, you can buy a Bitcoin mining company. Number three, you can buy a Bitcoin treasury company. If you buy a Bitcoin ETF because there's no income on Bitcoin yet, the number of Bitcoin per share that you're going to have is going to gradually decline. Why is it going to decline? There are expenses running the fund. They may not be large, but the fund will have no alternative other than to sell Bitcoin. Your Bitcoin for sure is gradually but inexorably going to decline. A Bitcoin mining company is your next alternative. Bitcoin mining companies, some of them, not all of them, some of them have managed to increase the amount of Bitcoin they had, but they did it at the expense of issuing shares. There's dilution there. The number of Bitcoin per share is actually declining. It's actually declining at a bigger rate than the Bitcoin ETF, which is one of the reasons why the Bitcoin ETF, or the Bitcoin ETFs, plural, they're all the same, outperformed the mining companies as a group. The latest and greatest iteration is the Bitcoin treasury company. Bitcoin treasury company is very simple. It's a company, it's a corporation that holds Bitcoin. Those companies have grown their Bitcoin by another modality. What they have done is they've issued shares, used the proceeds from issuance to buy Bitcoin in the open market. That has the virtue of being antidilutive. In other words, the number of Bitcoin per share is actually increasing. A lot of people would say that's actually marvelous. It is marvelous, of course, for the shareholders that we're in, and the Bitcoin appreciation is Bitcoin appreciation, of course, but the new shareholders are being diluted. The only way that can continue is if increasingly new numbers of shareholders don't mind dilution upon issuance of shares. The problem with that is that, for reasons that are self-evident, have attracted a great number of imitators. They're clearly not sustainable in the long run. Whatever the record is of growing Bitcoin-per-share, I don't believe any of those companies have exceeded or even come close to exceeding or matching or anything like it the record per share of Consensus Mining. Consensus, the big distinction is not that. The biggest distinction is, in the case of Consensus Mining, it's sustainable. In the case of the other corporations, it's not sustainable. Why has it been achieved to date? It's been achieved to date because many, many investment advisory companies will not allow their portfolio managers to purchase Bitcoin, but will allow their portfolio managers to purchase a common stock that holds Bitcoin. It's basically a device to avoid the restrictions that these investment advisors have placed upon themselves. Eventually, Bitcoin has become an accepted asset class for every investment advisor, and these devices will not be necessary. In any event, long before that happens, people will become, I think, disenchanted with being diluted upon new issuance of Bitcoin. I thought you'd find that interesting. You can go back to the questions, Agustin. Okay, great. Just as a reminder, we do have some pre-submitted questions that we're going to start discussing. If you do have any questions, please feel free to submit them through the online question tab on the GoTo webinar. Murray, I took the liberty to combine some questions because they're similar in thread. First one, how does Consensus Mining strategy differ from other typical crypto mining companies? What are the competitive advantages in CMSG, considering factors such as access to low-cost energy, efficient hardware, or operational expertise? Okay, to begin with, if you were to look at the financials, I believe there are 12 publicly traded mining companies. I think that's right. If you look at their financial statements and you compare them to Consensus Mining financial statements, you will immediately see a glaring difference. The first glaring difference is there's a lot of general and administrative expense related to those companies. We don't have that. We have a much lower breakeven. When the Bitcoin mining protocol was invented, it wasn't invented with a view of providing revenue to sustain that type of activity. Even if it did, and of course it doesn't, but even if it did, your revenue is Bitcoin. You would still have to sell a certain amount of Bitcoin to pay the administrative expense. We don't have that. That's the first advantage, and we can keep that going essentially forever. That's a sustainable advantage. The administrative expenses on the other companies, I dare say, will continue in the fullness of time, going to increase. That's one differential. Another differential is the halving in Bitcoin, which is in roughly, and maybe a day off, roughly 970 days, is theoretically the point where your current generation Bitcoin mining equipment might become obsolete. It's theoretically to date. It's not practically speaking to date. The reason it's not practically speaking to date is because the halving is 970 days from now, and the current equipment will not be profitable 970 days from now because your revenue is going to be cut in half, your revenue being expressed in numbers of Bitcoin. We cut in half. You'll have to replace it with new equipment. The trouble is, from the point of view of the mining equipment manufacturers, they can't wait till day 969 to introduce new equipment. They have to introduce that equipment earlier. As best as we can determine, that new equipment is going to be introduced and commence being available in the first quarter of 2026. Let's say somewhere between January and March, as best as we can determine. Therefore, the new equipment is going to change the hash rate in such a way that it's going to reduce the profitability of the existing equipment. In other words, the problem that the conventional, I dare say I'm going to use the term conventional, the problem that the conventional miners have is the problem of lack of time. As a practical matter, they don't have time to be able to achieve true breakeven on their equipment. That's the problem, essentially, if you go back and look at quarter by quarter by quarter, to the inception of the mining companies. There are a lot of occasions when they're forced to write off a lot of their equipment and have to replace it. Replacing it with the next generation requires either one of two things, and usually it's both. Either an insertion of new capital—if you have an insertion of new capital, there are more shares, your Bitcoin-per-share goes down—and/or in many cases they do both, sell some Bitcoin. You sell some Bitcoin to feed the whole purpose of what you tried to achieve. That's essentially a problem. Now, the Dogecoin, Litecoin, so-called scrypt mining, as an asset to hold long-term, Dogecoin would represent 90% of the revenue you get in mining that. Dogecoin is an inferior currency. It's an inferior currency, it doesn't have the issuance discipline. It does have an issuance discipline, but it's inferior to Bitcoin. There's no halving. You would expect, and this is indeed what happened, Bitcoin to outperform Dogecoin by a significant quantity, which indeed is happening and has happened in the past. However, Dogecoin does have one attribute, which is sort of intriguing, which is the lack of a halving. That means the lifespan of your equipment is longer. Our capital, therefore, the capital we deploy in equipment is far more productive. You also get a higher return on capital interim. You might say Dogecoin is an inferior coin, and I just said the same thing, so I agree with you, but we're only holding it for a day. We're not even holding it for the entirety of the day. By the way, we mine the Dogecoin throughout the day. We're not holding it for any appreciable period of time. We're not holding it as a long-term investment. We're just trying to get a higher return on capital. In addition to that, we're trying to get a much longer duration on our capital deployed. It's readily conceivable in conventional Bitcoin equipment that duration, even though the estimated useful life may go beyond the first quarter, the duration may well come to an end at some point in the earlier part of 2026. We don't wish to experience that. We went in the right direction. I would say those are our advantages. I'm pretty sure they're sustainable. I'll make one more point to that. You might be wondering, I have just explained this to you right now, and I have no idea who is listening to this call. Maybe somebody is going to emulate me. Maybe someone will say, that seems rather insightful. Let's emulate that and let's compete with them. You know what? We should be so lucky that they do that. Anyone who is on this call wants to compete, I invite you to compete. If you would like to call, I will give you more instructions on how to deploy this mining equipment. Why am I so generous? Not because I am such a generous person, but you might recall, we happen to have retained our Litecoin. We could have sold our Litecoin, but we retained it. We have over LTC 11,700. That is worth right now about $1.5 million. If we had a lot of imitators, the hash rate of the Dogecoin Litecoin configuration, the so-called scrypt mining protocol, would go up a lot. That vector would cause Litecoin to rise in value a lot. It would also cause Dogecoin to rise in value a lot also. Why? The more competition that there is, the harder it is to mine a coin, because there are only so many coins, a fixed amount of coins being issued in the block reward period. It is harder to get the coins, which means you have to deploy more equipment to get the same number of coins, which is the same thing as saying to get the same number of coins and spend more money. It is harder or more expensive, if you prefer, to mine a coin. That would force up the value of Litecoin a lot. The longer the so-called competitors wait to try to imitate us, you might say the more advantage we have in the short run, that is true, but more importantly, the more Litecoin we accumulate. I invite them to come. I hope they come, and we can make a lot of money on our Litecoin. There is a lot of optionality in this. As we speak, do not forget, every two and a half minutes, we are accumulating some Litecoin. I hope that explains it. Great. There are a couple of follow-up questions to your earlier remarks, Murray. You spoke about the Bitcoin halving and how that presented challenges in terms of cost of mining, as well as the lesser rewards available for miners. His question is, why should the Bitcoin price be commensurate to make this worthwhile as a cryptocurrency mining company? Oh, that's easy. You see, Bitcoin is a commodity like any commodity. Now, in the case of oil or gold, which are the commodities you're used to, it is possible and conceivable that the price of producing oil, the price of producing gold, or I should say the cost of producing oil or the cost of producing gold is higher than the price realization. In principle, gold might sell for $3,500 an ounce. It might cost $4,000 an ounce to continue. Why would people continue mining? They do continue mining. Why? Because the cost of mining gold relative to the infrastructure invested is fairly modest. You might invest billions of dollars to create a gold mine, and you want to recover your investment. You keep producing, it doesn't sound logical, but you keep producing even though your theoretical profit is negative. It's actually a loss, but your cash flow might be positive because you're depreciating your investment. On a financial statement, it could well look like the company is losing money, but it's only losing money because it's depreciating this massive capital investment. It's still cash flow. As long as it's going to produce not till break even, it's going to produce until negative cash flow. Negative cash flow, they stop. In the case of crypto, it doesn't take much to produce negative cash flow because the price of electric power is almost always going up. In addition to which, the amount of electric power that you're going to require to do this because of the halving is always increasing. What happens is if Bitcoin becomes unprofitable, it forces people out. It forces people out, but you have a low break even. What happens? The hash rate goes down. The hash rate goes down, now your profit goes up because you're getting more of the coins in every block reward period. Other people are under pressure, but through the magic of the equilibrium designed into the Bitcoin protocol, you're actually doing better, not doing worse. What happens ultimately is people see that and they re-enter the market. When they re-enter the market, they're not going to re-enter it unless the price of Bitcoin goes up. You might say, what makes it? What is the mechanism? This is where you usually get the question. What forces? Nothing forces the Bitcoin price to go up. You have two choices in the world. You can get a Bitcoin by buying it, which is the easy way, or you can get a Bitcoin by mining it, which is the hard way. To get a Bitcoin, you could buy a share of an ETF, and as a practical matter, you have Bitcoin. Nothing could be easier. If people don't mine, then the people who own the Bitcoin are not going to have a viable protocol to provide security. They have to mine. They have to offer a high enough price of Bitcoin, or put it another way, if it's cheaper to buy a Bitcoin than it is to mine, people are going to buy Bitcoin. If they buy the Bitcoin, it's going to force the price of Bitcoin up. It's going to force it above the break even because if it's below the break even, people are just going to buy Bitcoin. It's a naturally self-equilibrating mechanism. It was designed to be a self-equilibrating mechanism. One of the things that makes this self-equilibrating mechanism is the supply that's issued in any 10-minute interval in the case of Bitcoin is fixed by the protocol. That doesn't happen in oil. That doesn't happen in natural gas. That doesn't happen in gold. Supply is not fixed. The protocol designed it to be naturally equilibrated. We can go into this in more detail, but I hope I've given you enough information that you can see that it's almost always going to restore itself to equilibrium in a very brief period of time, like in the case of days, usually hours. Murray, I think your expectation that your explanation just now is a little counterintuitive for most is correct. There's another follow-up question. Can you help elaborate the difference on profit versus cash flow again? The specific question is related to when will the business of CMSG be consistently profitable and what circumstances will lead to that, excluding mark-to-market. I think, if we can explain the nuances on the three-part profit, cash flow, and the mark-to-market. Sure. It's very simple. We throw off cash. You're looking at the financial statement. We're required to depreciate our equipment over a three-year interval. Our equipment lasts more than three years. We started buying the scrypt mining equipment, I think it's 14 months or 15 months ago. I don't remember exactly. It's not that long ago. That equipment is going to last past its depreciable life. As a matter of fact, we already have some equipment that we're actually operating right now profitably past the expected or depreciable life. There will come a point in time, probably 18 or some months from now, when the rate of profitability exceeds the rate of depreciation. Then we will book a GAAP profit. Right now, we don't have a GAAP profit just because we're depreciating our equipment at a faster rate than is really happening. We could change that. We could make it profitable tomorrow. We could change our estimated life. If we did that, you might feel better that we have a GAAP profit. We could make it happen next quarter if you really want it. What would happen is we'd pay taxes. We don't want to pay taxes. We're allowed to depreciate at this rate. It's perfectly acceptable. We depreciate at this rate. We're profitable right now. We're quite profitable, as a matter of fact. As a matter of fact, in the case of Consensus Mining in July, if we hadn't bought equipment and we ignored depreciation and we just booked cash, don't forget that we used the profit from the scrypt mining to buy coins. If we left everything alone and just wanted to book a GAAP profit, we could have changed our depreciation life. We would have had in the month of July, probably $100,000+, maybe $120,000 of profit, pre-tax, of course. If we changed the estimated life of the equipment, and we depreciated at a different rate, of $120,000, the government is going to get their share of it. They need the money, and I don't doubt that, but I'm speaking for myself and only myself, not the company. Since we don't have to give it to them, I'd rather not give it to them. Reasonable minds may differ. I hope that answers the question. Yep. You mentioned before the observation on our Bitcoin reserve, you know, from XBT 144 to XBT 300+. Do you have the timeframe for that, Murray? XBT 114, not XBT 144. Sorry. XBT 114. Do you have the timeframe for that, Murray? Alun can give you the exact date. I don't recall the exact date. Yeah. Consensus Mining was formed on December 1st, 2021. That's approximately three years and eight months. Okay. The follow-up question is, can this growth rate in BTC per share be maintained? What rate can we expect going forward? Okay. It can be maintained. It can be increased. The question is, to what degree or how rapidly are we going to add to equipment? For example, we could add the equipment a lot faster than we're adding right now, but we'd rather not do it. There's one risk in doing this, which I should tell you first. I'll tell you why we'd rather not do it. I'll tell you what we're going to do. You never know when there's going to be a technological advance. If there's a technological advance that is in the equipment, if right before then you bought a lot of equipment, you might be obsoleted. We're going to have a problem. Since we know we can sustain this and we know we can increase it at a gradual pace, let's just cancel out the technological obsolescence risk. Just keep doing it at this rate. We talked about the, a number was mentioned, it's roughly 700 GH/s. There are scrypt mining stuff. 15 months ago, it was 0 GH/s. I would take note of the 700 GH/s, and every quarter, we will update that figure, and you will be able to calculate exactly the rate at which we're growing. That's why we released that figure. Of course, when we were zero or near zero, it was a meaningless figure, and there was no point in dwelling on it. Now you will be able to measure it with some degree of exactitude. Okay. Next question is about the cash or liquidity that we have on the balance sheet. There are a few questions related to this, but the gist is basically, is there a plan for the cash deployment on the balance sheet? There are some questions related to whether we are considering utilizing some of this cash to directly acquire Bitcoin or any of the other coins that we like. There are some other questions related to the fact that with the balance sheet mostly in cash and a small amount of cryptocurrency reserves, how will investors be able to get a multiple on this investment? Okay. There's a lot of questions there. First of all, let me just correct something. We don't have the balance of our assets in cash with a very small Bitcoin reserve. The value of the Bitcoin we have right now at today's market value is not far from $41 million. The value of Litecoin is, around numbers, $1.5 million. Divided by cash, around numbers, is $60 million. What's going to happen every quarter since we're accumulating coins? The cash is going to be less and less important. When you read the financial statement, it's not obvious what the market value of the Bitcoin is because you're looking backwards. At the moment, we have almost $41 million in Bitcoin. Not a small amount of money. The question is, what can you do with the money? You can do a lot of things. One thing you can do is you can buy back shares. Everybody else is issuing shares. One possibility is to buy back the shares. One of the problems we have right now is we have an overhang. The market makers don't know who wants to sell. As a matter of fact, the people who have the shares don't even know if they want to sell. That's an overhang. Buying back the shares with the corporate capital is one possible solution. It's not the only possible solution to that, but I think it's good to keep it as a contingency. Another possibility is there are a lot of Bitcoin companies that were Bitcoin mining companies that just can't sustain themselves the way they are right now. Maybe we'll have an opportunity to pick up something that we want fairly cheap because what they're doing is just not sustainable. The truth is there are a lot of ways we can go. There are a lot of things we can do apart from using the cash. The best thing to do since we just became public, let's leave the cash alone. We don't need it to do anything yet. There may be an opportunity that's hard to forecast. Let's leave it alone. In due course, the Bitcoin is going to dwarf the cash balance. I think it's fairly evident from the figures that I mentioned. The Bitcoin is appreciating and the number of coins are increasing. I hope that addresses the question. Yes. Can you more directly address the question? I think you already addressed this in your earlier remarks. Why is CMSG better than directly buying Bitcoin? Why? Because, say we have $60 million of cash. Let's say we said, oh, let's take $57 million and buy Bitcoin. We'll leave $3 million in cash for contingencies, whatever they might be. Okay. We could do that once. We'll obviously have more Bitcoin than we have right now. The issue is if there's some type of problem in new equipment, let's say our equipment gets obsoleted all of a sudden, how are we going to respond? We'd be in a lot of trouble. It's already happened, not to us, but it's happened to other people. You'll feel good for a brief period of time until you feel very, very bad. You don't want to do that. We are growing our Bitcoin every single week. I don't think we've missed one week, frankly. The next challenge is not just to grow our Bitcoin every week, but to increase the rate that we grow our Bitcoin every week. All indications are that we're going to be able to achieve it. Let's continue on that pathway. I hope that is the right way to answer that question. Should shareholders assume that CMSG management has a slight preference for Bitcoin rather than Litecoin? That's a qualified yes. Let me tell you why it's a qualified yes. The amount of Litecoin that trades per day, at least insofar as the Litecoin blockchain is concerned, exceeds, on average, $11 billion a day. The reason that number is important is that's bigger than the market capitalization of Bitcoin. Bitcoin might trade, on a good day, $20 billion a day. Litecoin, which is a market capitalization of fractions, maybe between 2% and 3% of the market capitalization of Bitcoin, trades about half as much as Bitcoin. It's developing a use protocol. We don't know what that's going to be yet. One use protocol is it might be used in same-day settlement for securities. Somewhere within the next 24 months, we're going to move to same-day settlement of securities, which really, as a practical matter, means instantaneous settlement. You probably want to have instantaneous settlement, and you want it to be immutable. Litecoin might be something for that. If a use case develops for Litecoin, that Litecoin is going to be worth a lot of money. Our $1.5 million, soon to be more, of Litecoin, it could appreciate enormously, very, very rapidly. It's possible, just like Bitcoin did. We just don't know what it's going to be. There's a lot of discussion about what the Litecoin use case might be. I personally believe that with the development of ordinals, you have ordinals of Bitcoin, you have ordinals of Bitcoin Cash, you have ordinals of Litecoin. In theory, you could permanently inscribe the serial number of every share of stock in the New York Stock Exchange on every subset of Litecoin. I think they're called Litoshis. I think there's 100 million Litoshis for every Litecoin. There's more than enough capacity to absorb every single serial number of every individual share. It's possible. It's not the only thing you could do it with. You could do it with airline miles. You could do it with mortgages. You could do it with real estate. There are many, many use cases. We just don't know what it's going to be yet. I think it's going to be something. It really, I think Litecoin has a lot of optionality. Just like Bitcoin and cash has a lot of optionality. The reason those have a lot of optionality, there's thousands and thousands of coins. The reason those have optionality and the many thousands of coins that exist don't have the same optionality, there are only about 40 coins that are mined that have an organic community of miners. Miners is a very poorly chosen word. It really should be called validators. In other words, somebody who's checking a transaction. When you transact with your bank or your brokerage firm, yes, there's a lot of cybersecurity software, but there aren't third parties that are checking it. That's why they're hacked. No one's ever hacked Bitcoin. All the Bitcoin look-alikes, no one's successfully hacked them either, really. A lot of things are possible. They just haven't developed yet. We need to be very, very attentive, which goes back to you never know when you're going to need some cash. We have no idea how the world's going to change. It's likely to change in a radical way. It's likely that we can't forecast what that change is. We need to be ready to act if something happens. It might be a tremendous opportunity. That's what I can tell you so far. I think Litecoin is going to be a great success. The next questions are related to the trading liquidity of CMSG. The first one, do you have any plans to bring CMSG to a larger stock exchange for more liquidity? Are you considering a stock split? What plans do you have to improve liquidity, i.e., reduce bid-ask spread? Okay. First of all, bringing CMSG to another exchange does not get you any liquidity. You could list on the New York Stock Exchange tomorrow, and you're going to have one share more liquidity than you have today. The reason, there's only one reason you don't have liquidity. It's just the shares are owned by the shareholders. The shareholders, with some very, very minor exceptions, haven't yet wanted to sell. If the shareholders don't want to sell any shares, you're not going to have any liquidity. That's just the way it works. Management can't create liquidity that the shareholders are not willing to provide the marketplace because it's not the management that creates liquidity. It's the shareholders that create liquidity. Now, it was very important. I can understand why the shareholders don't want to sell. I'm a shareholder, and I don't want to sell. I really understand it. In the fullness of time, there are three ways to do it. One way is, in the fullness of time, through life circumstance, some people will want to sell shares. It may not be a choice. There'll be things happening in life. They'll need the money for something, and they'll sell shares, and liquidity will be created. That's one way to do it. That's the organic way. The other way to do it is to merge ourselves into a company that has liquidity. That's the second way to do it. It's called a reverse merger. We did that in the case of Horizon Kinetics. You could do it as many times as you want until you get liquidity. The trouble with doing it that way is there's a certain amount of dilution that you experience when you do that. There's a second problem that comes with that sometimes, which is if the shareholders of the company you're merging into like what you're doing a lot, they won't sell either. All of a sudden, liquidity on that company will be relatively nonexistent, and you wouldn't have accomplished what you wanted anyway. The third way to do it is to do a stock offering. You would list the shares on a national stock exchange in conjunction with a stock offering. You'd go to an underwriter probably and raise a certain amount of money that we clearly do not need, but there'll be a certain amount of dilution involved in it. Maybe if we traded at the very high price to book multiple, it might be justifiable. If we had a use for cash, there was something that we wanted to do, which might happen one day. That might be a way to do it. In the short run, liquidity is what liquidity is. It's all up to the shareholders to put some shares in the marketplace. For example, if every shareholder decided they wanted to sell 5% of your shares over the next month, we'd have plenty of liquidity. As I said, there are other ways to do it, and I'm very glad that people don't want to sell shares. I don't want to sell shares. We'll find a solution to the problem. Meantime, while we're thinking about it, let's just do what we can to grow the business. I think it's a problem that'll solve itself in the not-too-distant future. Can you speak about future investor relations efforts to increase publicity about CMSG? Are we planning to have a dedicated IR effort, or are we planning a roadshow to expand the reach of CMSG to the research coverage domain? We don't have scheduled a so-called roadshow. However, there are a number of analysts to commence with. The short answer is yes, to commence with. We're in the process of contacting the various analysts that follow this space, and we're going to present to them to see what they say, get the feedback, see if they are as impressed with us as we are impressed with ourselves. If they are, then a non-deal roadshow might be a good thing to do, maybe something in the context of an investor day. Of course, if we decide to do a stock offering, then we'll have a roadshow. I'm not sure if you can address this question, Murray, but do you have an expectation of what multiple CMSG should trade at? There's a reference here for other miners trading for 1.5x- 4x, although I don't know what kind of multiple this is in reference to. I can't speak to that number because I don't know what the universe is, but I can say this. If the proposition is true, which it obviously is because we just cited the ordinate figures, if indeed we can grow our coins per share, let's make believe for the sake of argument we did not sell at a premium book value. There would be a natural arbitrage because what someone could do is sell short $1,000 worth of a Bitcoin ETF and buy $1,000 worth of us. If they now isolate our growth rate, whatever our growth rate is, X, they're now going to make X% for free with no risk because the Bitcoin price is canceled out. There is something in the world of investment theory that's called the no arbitrage rule. That's not supposed to be possible. As people come to understand and appreciate what our rate of growth is of coins per share, a gap should develop between book value and market price. That gap is going to depend on how fast we can grow the coins. We're doing everything possible to grow the coins per share. Remember, it's growing the coins per share, A, and B, growing the coins per share in a sustainable way. It has to continue. To grow the coins per share all of a sudden by buying a lot of coins, that's not sustainable, so you won't get a multiple. We have to do it in a sustainable, continual way. That's the challenge. We've done it so far, and we're going to do everything we can to continue. We have a few questions related to our operations. Perhaps you can start, and if Alun or Kevin may want to jump in, that would be appreciated. First, are tariffs impacting our operations or capital expenditure, or do we expect them to? What is it impacting? Did you say tariffs? Tariffs, yeah. Tariffs, as in the people who blow things up? Is that your words? No. What did you say? No. Tariffs. Tariffs, T-A-R-I-F-F. Oh, tariffs. I thought you said terrorists. Tariffs. Generally speaking, we buy landed equipment. That means the equipment's already here, so we're not, generally speaking, buying things that come from China. Murray, if I might add to that as well, one of the drivers behind doing that is with the tariffs being potentially a moving target. If we were to acquire equipment from overseas directly from the manufacturer, we don't know what the tariff will be at the time it lands in U.S. customs. We're kind of playing a price game of unknown. You know, is the tariff 20%? Is it 50%? We prefer to acquire equipment where the cost of the equipment is a known quantity once it's already in the country, landed, and any import taxes or tariffs have already been paid. That way, we can make informed decisions about the equipment that we're purchasing. Right. There's also, I will add, and you might want to comment on this, if we order equipment from the Far East, it's possible customs service might seize the equipment. Yes, that's absolutely true. There have been occasions that we haven't experienced, but others have in this space where equipment has been seized by customs because they may suspect that maybe there's a Huawei chip involved in the equipment itself. We've heard stories of equipment being seized and held permanently as a result of concerns over some of the embargoes that are imposed on certain Chinese chip manufacturers. We prefer, because it gives us a sense of certainty, to acquire equipment that is currently landed in the U.S. and cleared. We then pay just local sales tax to the state that we're having the equipment delivered to. The short answer is tariffs really don't affect us directly. Okay. Now, we'll add one comment to that, which is, if the tariff makes the equipment more expensive, that means it's more expensive to make the coin. That means the coin goes up in price. Generally speaking, when they impose tariffs, the practical consequence is your coins are worth more money in dollars. Do we plan to consolidate our mining locations, or do we view diversity as desirable? We're definitely not going to consolidate our mining locations. A lot of things can happen if you're concentrated in one location, and they're all bad. You could have hurricanes, tornadoes, or floods. Your equipment can be hit by lightning. There are all sorts of things that can happen. There can be fires. This is one of the cases where diversity really is a strength. We like to move our equipment to various locations and try to keep it relatively balanced. If I may add to that as well, Murray, certain states may have a change in their views on cryptocurrency mining. We saw that a number of years ago in New York State where they put a moratorium on new facilities being built or expanded. Diversity across states is helpful from a legislative perspective as well. Alun, can you summarize where we are currently mining from? There's a follow-up question on whether we plan to mine in the Permian Basin. Yeah. As of right now, we're mining in two locations. We're mining in the state of Nebraska, sorry, two states. We're mining in the state of Nebraska, and we have two different locations in the state of North Carolina. As of about a year ago, we were mining in Texas. That service provider decided to shut down their operations from a hosting perspective and decided to switch to a self-mine structure. They're using their facilities today to self-mine as opposed to hosting client equipment. Yes, we're currently diversified with three different providers in two different states, but we are constantly looking for partners to help continue to diversify as we see our current providers potentially maxing out on capacity. The provider that we have in Nebraska is expanding in the southern East Coast states as well. Their capacity is growing. We are looking to diversify further from the current hosting providers that we have. If the Permian Basin or Texas in the more broader sense is an appropriate option based on pricing and how the service provider would work with us from our growth perspective, the way we grow our mining footprint, then yes, we would certainly consider that if the pricing was correct. For us, the most important thing is, you know, we only mine in the U.S. because we don't want to be exposed to geopolitical issues outside the U.S. We want to make sure that we're paying a fair price for the hosting services that we. Okay. That said, I should also tell you, historically, this is related to Consensus Mining. We have, at one time, mined in Oregon. We have, at one time, mined in Quebec. We have, at one time, actually mined, I think it was in the state of Virginia. I think it was Virginia, if I'm not mistaken. Do we have plans to consider yield farming or yield-enhancing strategies such as flash lending? We don't have any plans to consider it. If you could lend on a totally secured basis, we would do it. I can just tell you we didn't experiment, not with any Consensus Mining money. We didn't experiment with my money. I personally lent a couple of Bitcoin out. It ended up being a good experience because I got the Bitcoin back. There was a point in time where I wasn't sure I'd get them back. To the degree we experiment, which we always do, we can experiment with our money, not the company's money. It worked out okay in the long run. I don't think you would have liked to have the experience that I had. Thankfully, I was in position. I was able to afford the loss. If it would have happened, it might have happened, but it ended up not happening. When it's secure, we will definitely do it. Okay. All right. Next question. Consensus Mining came public without raising capital. Has the ability of so-called digital asset treasury companies to raise a large amount of capital above net asset value surprised you? We spoke about this earlier. Do you have any additional thoughts about successfully navigating the euphoric environment? There is a very specific question related to MicroStrategy, which recently had to issue new shares of common stock to service the 10% dividend on its preferred stock. This is a very big problem. If the common stock trades down to the point where the market becomes doubtful that MicroStrategy would continue that policy and hence put the dividend policy in jeopardy, that will create an avalanche effect. They will have to sell some of its Bitcoin instead of selling it or selling their common stock at a depressed price, which would be even worse. This seems to be a very ugly picture for Bitcoin. What happened when this tulip mania ended? Okay. A lot of points there. I agree with most of it. To begin with, we're not joining the current mania. Plans to do that can only be sustained a certain period of time. The only reason it's being sustained right now is there are plenty of people that want exposure to Bitcoin, but they can't get exposure to Bitcoin because one or more regulations, either from the firms they work for or the customers which they have, forbid it. They buy conventional equities that count as conventional equities. Their assets are largely in Bitcoin. At some point, that will stop. There's no point in joining that, especially since our strategy, in my very humble opinion, is so much better. I'm going to take it out of sequence, the questions. Whatever problems the Bitcoin or the Bitcoin treasury companies will have, which I agree, they're going to have them, just because the equities have problems, understand Bitcoin is a different asset class than equities. Those equities probably will have a lot of problems. It's not going to disturb Bitcoin one bit. Bitcoin value is based on the vectors of the hash rate and the time to the halving and things of that type. They're going to continue unmolested whatever happens with these treasury companies. In other words, I don't want to give you the idea, because it's not true, that because some companies are issuing shares and taking cash and buying Bitcoin, that Bitcoin is trading at some inflated value. The Bitcoin price is set by the Bitcoin protocol. For a few hours, can it be disturbed a little bit? Yes. Very quickly, within hours, it equilibrates. Bitcoin is designed to be a self-equilibrating system. It may well be that a lot of companies that issue shares to buy Bitcoin are going to have difficulties in the future. I wouldn't expect that Bitcoin, the coin, is going to have difficulties because of that. You might say they're going to have difficulties that pay a dividend. You might think they're going to have to dump Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is going to go down in price. It's not going to go down in price because of that. Maybe for a few hours, but not beyond that. I don't expect that to happen. The last Bitcoin winter happened in 2022. That was because the price of equipment dropped tremendously. The price of equipment dropped tremendously because for a year, the price of equipment was rising. Why was it rising? Because the companies that they didn't have Bitcoin treasury companies. They only had Bitcoin mining companies. They raised a lot of money, and they bought Bitcoin mining equipment. They thought having market share is a real advantage because it is a real advantage in most businesses, not an advantage in Bitcoin. They actually agreed to pay too much money for the equipment. They just wanted instantaneous delivery. If the equipment is more expensive, that forces up the value of Bitcoin. As we approach the halving, the equipment must come down in price. Therefore, as we approach the halving, instead of Bitcoin price going up, the price actually went down. Not because there's anything wrong with Bitcoin, because the price of the mining equipment actually went down by 80% odd. So did Bitcoin, because the price of the equipment is one of the vectors. I don't expect the treasury companies are going to have any meaningful impact on the price of Bitcoin, nor have they had any meaningful impact on it so far. They're not forcing up the value of Bitcoin. You probably don't believe that, but you might recall that I guess it was a year and a half ago when BlackRock issued its Bitcoin ETF, shortly followed within days, among others. I think in the first couple of weeks, BlackRock raised $20 billion to buy Bitcoin. Everyone thought, and other Bitcoin ETFs raised lesser sums. Everyone thought the Bitcoin is now going to go up because it was like a stock. The buying actual forced it up in price. It didn't. Bitcoin went down. There was a couple of week period where the Bitcoin ETF was actually getting withdrawals because the people bought the Bitcoin ETF on the premise, which sounds reasonable, but actually is very unreasonable, that buying power is going to force the price of Bitcoin up. Bitcoin doesn't work that way. Bitcoin is not subject to the conventional rules of supply and demand. I know that's virtually impossible for people to believe, but I assure you it's true. Okay. Next question. Can the team speak to the evolving landscape for data center space and cheap electricity relative to the exponential demand from unprofitable AI companies? The next question is related. Is there a real threat that AI hyperscalers with more CapEx requirement to buy up the majority of available and long-term committed power at a premium that would make the long-term profitability of cryptocurrency mining undesirable as a result of the higher power cost? Understanding this situation, if more miners leave the network, the difficulty adjustment would compensate that to some extent. Couldn't the power reaching to a certain cost per kilowatt hour threaten the entire network? We've seen this trend from some other cryptocurrency mining companies moving towards the same direction, i.e., going more the AI hyperscaler side of things. Okay. There are a lot of questions here. I am going to just take one slice of it, then I will invite the team to comment on the other parts of it, and then I will try to cover what was not addressed. To begin with, let us just make believe that the price of electric power globally, because it is Bitcoin. First thing to understand, Bitcoin is a global market. You can mine Bitcoin anywhere in the world. They do not have AI data centers everywhere in the world. You can mine Bitcoin in any country, any location, any region. Let us make believe that I am going to pick an insane number. Let us say the cheapest power you can get to mine Bitcoin is $1 a kilowatt hour, which is so grossly in excess of what you would pay right now. It is crazy. Let us say that was the cheapest power. The only thing that would happen is Bitcoin is designed to be a self-equilibrating system. The price of Bitcoin would skyrocket. That is one of the reasons why Bitcoin ultimately embraces inflation. It is the same concept as if you were to get a history book and you could look at in 1854, at the time of the Crimean War, you could mine gold in a variety of places in the world, not least of which California. The cost of extracting an ounce of gold from the ground was about $5. It is nothing like that today. If someone had The Wall Street Journal 170 years later and they said, "Wow, the price of extracting an ounce of gold in some regions of the world is going to be $1,600 an ounce," no one was going to want gold. They did not want that. It did not work that way. All that really happened is the price of gold went up. Conversely, let us make believe that however it happened, the cost of extracting an ounce of gold in 1854 was $5 an ounce. Let us say it had stayed at $5 an ounce over the course of one and three-quarter centuries almost. The price of gold would be largely unchanged. What is the proof of that? Proof of that is from the 1850s until almost the First World War, not quite the First World War, but let us say roughly 1908- 1910, the price of extracting an ounce of gold did not go up appreciably, and the gold price did not rise. Shortly before the First World War, for a variety of reasons, the price of extracting an ounce of gold actually started to increase, and the price of gold increased. Bitcoin functioned a lot more like that. Bitcoin is not going to be made impossible because the price of electric power is going up. If the price of electric power goes up, you won't own Bitcoin. The price of electric power rose globally by some egregious quantity. Believe me, you want to own all the Bitcoin you can possibly get your hands on. Having said that, I'll invite the team to comment on the other aspects of the questions if they are so inclined. I guess, Tim, would you mind repeating the other parts of the question for me? Sure. I think there are some questions related to some cryptocurrency mining companies reallocating their locations from a mining operation to serve these AI hyperscalers or data centers. What do we think about that trend? If we, I guess, are considering the same? Yeah. We don't actually own our own crypto mining facilities. We use third-party service providers that own, run, and operate those cryptocurrency mining locations. We don't get the choice as to whether we want to convert anything to be AI processing, for example. There are very distinct types of crypto mining facilities that exist, many of which are really not suitable for AI data centers. If you have a building that has air conditioning and air filtration, then yes, it's something that you could convert to AI. That's partly because of the quality of the air, the lack of dust and particles you need to have in the building, and your ability to control the temperature of the building. A lot of the cryptocurrency mining data centers themselves are standalone containers, and those are not suitable for AI processing. As a result, those facilities are not going to be able to convert to AI data processing. They will continue to exist in the form that supports cryptocurrency mining. That would be kind of the main thing that I would think about. There is going to be potentially some of the cryptocurrency mining data centers that are housed could convert into AI data centers, but there is a significant amount that is not. The other thing as well is that the capital investment to build an AI data center is significantly greater than it is for a cryptocurrency data center because of all the need for all of the air purifiers, the air conditioning, and controlling the environment in which those GPUs are actually processing and operating. The last thing as well is that a lot of the power cost benefits that cryptocurrency miners are able to get is they're able to curtail. During times when there's high demand and extra high heat, that kind of thing, the cryptocurrency miners voluntarily curtail, allowing the power-generating companies that supply power to their facilities to direct the power to the needs of the power that are greater than cryptocurrency mining, such as hospitals, schools, that kind of thing, which allows them to essentially consume the excess power that exists within the system and turn off when that excess power is needed for other needs. AI data centers need to run 24 hours a day. They don't have that ability to curtail in the same way. As a result, the AI data centers have to pay a premium on their power costs. There are significant differences between them. Yes, one can look at the AI data centers as being more profitable than running a cryptocurrency mining data center, but it comes with additional benefits and withdrawals. The AI data centers are going to have higher operating costs, higher upfront capital costs, and it's not really comparing apples for apples when you're comparing an AI data center to a cryptocurrency data center. Great. Thank you. Down to the last question, Murray. Can you comment on quantum computing, which has been discussed as a potential risk or threat to the Bitcoin protocol? Okay. I get that question a lot. Quantum computing is in no way a threat to Bitcoin. I'm going to go into this in a little bit of detail. I may get a little technical at times. Forgive me if I do, and you feel free to ask a follow-up. I'll try to make it simple. It involves some degree of mathematics, which I'll make very, very simple. Everyone hates math. It's some degree of mathematics. I'll make it simple so that everybody can understand it. Mathematically speaking, quantum computing is no threat whatsoever to Bitcoin mining. Now let's understand why people think quantum computing is a threat to Bitcoin mining. We'll deal with that first, and then we'll understand why it is not a threat. It's easy to see why they think it's a threat. Quantum computers are basically, simplistically put, these incredibly fast computers. To unlock a Bitcoin block, basically, you're trying to guess a number. You only have a 10-minute interval to do it, and there are a lot of possible guesses. Maybe given the power of modern-day computing, within a 10-minute defined interval, you just can't do enough guesses to come close to doing it. If you had a quantum computer and you could multiply the power 100-fold or 1,000-fold or 10,000-fold or any number you like, then they would be able to do it. That's wrong. The reason it's wrong is because the numbers that you might have to guess are not fixed. They're infinite. Let me explain how the Bitcoin security protocol works, and you'll understand a little better. The Bitcoin security protocol is called SHA or SHA-256. What does that mean? SHA stands for Secure Hashing Algorithm 256. 256 is not the 256th version of all the other. They didn't have 255 protocols before, and they came up with 256 that really works. It's that when they had the first Bitcoin Genesis block and you wanted to unlock it, you had to guess a number within a 10-minute interval. The number of possibilities were 2 to the 256th power. That number, 2 to the 256th power, that's how many possibilities that you had. 2 to the 256th power, giving you an idea, is more than the number of grains of sand on the planet. It's a big number. Nevertheless, with a certain sufficiently powerful computer, you could do it. It doesn't have to be a quantum computer. The Bitcoin protocol, or the SHA-256 protocol, came up with a concept called the difficulty coefficient. What is the difficulty coefficient? It is a number that you multiply this original number of possibilities, 2 to the 256th power, by to increase the number of possibilities. For example, you have this number of choices, 2 to the 256th power, and let's say you multiplied those choices by 2. Now you have 2 times 256th power. That's 2 times the number of grains of sand on the planet. The difficulty rating could be three. I should say the difficulty coefficient. The difficulty coefficient could be three it could be four, it could be 10, it could be 110, it could be 510, 810, 110,000, and so on and so forth. At the moment, it's something like 125 trillion. You're taking these number of possibilities, 2 to the 256th power, and increasing those possibilities because there's no end to number of possibilities. It's infinite. As a matter of fact, you can have infinity squared, infinity cubed, infinity to the fourth power. When they finally come up with quantum computers, if you have a free second, all you have to do is increase the difficulty coefficient to the proper number to have more possibilities than the quantum computers can ever have. It takes about a second. The quantum computers, brilliant as the people are who are in the process of devising them, because of the algorithm, they don't have a prayer of cracking it. Not a prayer. Not a chance in eternity. It's just never going to happen. I hope that's an adequate answer that isn't too mathematically involved. Can the miners potentially also use quantum computing power as part of their? Same thing. Same thing. Same thing. People rephrase the question and say, "What if a miner did it?" Same thing. No matter how powerful or how many computers you have, the difficulty coefficient can be made anything. Since everyone's going to know how powerful the quantum computers are, it's just a question of setting the difficulty coefficient to the right figure. It takes about a second. Got it. They're just not going to win. It's ridiculous. Nevertheless, there rarely is a day that someone doesn't write an article because no one's ever hacked Bitcoin. Because no one's ever hacked Bitcoin, and the bulk of the people who are out there, for whatever reason, they're extraordinarily hostile to Bitcoin. They say, "Just you wait until the quantum computers come out, and then it'll be hacked." No, it will not. Great. Those are all the questions we have for today, Murray. Just a quick housekeeping closing remarks. This call is recorded. We will be posting the replay online on the Consensus Mining website shortly following today. If you have any follow-up questions, we welcome that. The best way to reach us is through ir@consensusmining.com. Murray, Alun, Mark, Kevin, thank you so much. Murray or Alun, if you have any closing remarks, we'd love to hear from you. Otherwise, we can say goodbye. I just wanted to say thanks, everyone, for your support. I know it happens. Whenever you hang up a phone like this, 20 minutes later, you'll think of a question you should have asked, but you didn't ask. Feel free to contact us, and we will get an answer to you. I look forward to engaging with you. Of course, we'll reprise this in about 90 days. I hope you found today's presentation informative. Thanks so much. Thanks very much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Take care.