Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Mark Herndon, Chief Financial Officer of Consensus Mining & Seigniorage Corporation. I'd like to welcome you to the 2026 annual meeting of shareholders. I am presently at the offices of Horizon Kinetics Asset Management in New York City with Murray Stahl, Chief Strategy Officer of Consensus Mining & Seigniorage Corp., Alan Williams, a director and President of Consensus Mining & Seigniorage Corp., Kevin McRae, a director and Chief Technology Officer of Consensus Mining & Seigniorage Corp., along with Jay Kesslen, General Counsel, and Russ Kamaldi, Secretary. We're glad you could join us today. We're excited to have shareholders joining us via live broadcast as well with us here in person. Just a quick reminder that we'll be posting a recording of today's broadcast on the investor relations portion of our company's website. Welcome, everyone. We have a lot of information to share with you today, so we're gonna get started initially with some official business to cover. The meeting will be conducted in accordance with the agenda and rules of conduct, which have been provided to those shareholders joining us in person today and under the meeting materials section of the web portal for those attending virtually. Following the company's presentation portions of the agenda, we will address shareholder questions that were submitted both in advance of the meeting and during the proceedings. If you are a shareholder and have logged into the meeting using your 16-digit control number, you may ask a question by typing it in the Ask a Question box at the bottom of the screen. We will do our best to answer as many questions as possible within the allotted timeframe. We ask the questions be limited to matters pertaining to the company. At this time, the polls are officially open. If you have previously cast your vote, then your vote has already been tallied, and there is no need for you to vote again. If you are entitled to vote and wish to revoke a previously submitted proxy and cast your vote during the meeting, you may do so online now until the polls are closed. We have received an affidavit from our inspector of elections, certifying that each shareholder of record as of Friday, January 23rd, 2026, was mailed an official notice of this meeting on or about February 3, 2026, along with the Notice of Internet Availability of proxy materials. As of the record date, Friday, January 23rd, 2026, we had 2,250,009 shares outstanding and eligible to vote. Shareholders attending in person were provided with an opportunity to view the shareholder list upon check-in. The Inspector of Elections for this meeting has informed me that based on the information received from Broadridge, 67% of the total shares entitled to vote are present either through the virtual meeting portal, in person, by proxy, thereby constituting a quorum. Copies of the affidavit of mailing for Broadridge, along with a signed oath from the Inspector of Elections, will be included within the meeting minutes. Presentation of proposals. As discussed in our proxy, we have six proposals to be voted on. Proposal number one, to elect Christopher Capps as a director of the company, who is to hold office until the next annual meeting of the company's shareholders and until his successor is duly elected and qualified, or until his earlier death, resignation, or removal. Proposal two, to elect Kevin McRae as a director of the company, who is to hold office until the next annual meeting of the company's shareholders and until his successor is duly elected, qualified, or until his earlier death, resignation, or removal. Proposal three, to elect Lisa Price as a director of the company, who is to hold office until the next annual meeting of the company's shareholders, until her successor is duly elected and qualified, or until her earlier death, resignation, or removal. Proposal four, to elect Andrew Webber as a director of the company, who is to hold office until the next annual meeting of the company's shareholders and until his successor is duly elected and qualified, or until his earlier death, resignation, or removal. Proposal five, to elect Alun Williams as a director of the company, who is to hold office until the next annual meeting of the company's shareholders and until his successor is duly elected and qualified, or until his earlier death, resignation, or removal. Proposal six, to ratify the appointment by the audit committee of the company's board of directors of WithumSmith+Brown, PC as the auditor of the company for the fiscal year ended December 31st, 2026. At this time, the polls are now closed for voting, and I will now provide a preliminary voting report that reflects the votes submitted prior to this meeting. We have been informed by the Inspector of Elections that the preliminary vote report shows that the nominees for election to the board have been duly elected and ratification of the appointment, by the audit committee of the company's board of directors, of WithumSmith+Brown as the auditor of the company for the fiscal year ending December 31st, 2026, has been approved. We will be reporting the final vote totals results in our next filing. With that, the formal business portion of the 2026 annual shareholders meeting has been concluded. It's now time we'll discuss the company's results. As you may know, we had our year-end results recently presented. I'm not gonna go back over those in detail right now, but we are gonna turn it over to Murray for some comments, and then we'll open it up for questions and answers. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that introduction. Thank you for attending. Could I commence, Mark? Yes. Can I ask you a question that I hope it's not unfair. It's a finite question. Maybe Alun can answer it. On 12/31/2024, in round numbers, how many Bitcoin did we own? Do you know? Mm-hmm. Is there a way of looking it up? Well, there is a way to look it up. Off the cuff, I was gonna say about 330. If you'll give us a minute, we'll have that. It's 346 at the end of 2025. I think right now in round numbers, it's about 349 as of this moment. I think it's 349 in some increment. 349.3. Okay. At this moment or maybe as of last night. As of last night. As of last night. Okay. We had folks' number as of 12/31/2024. Do you know that number? I don't have that number handy. Okay. Could you estimate that number and we'll take your word for it? I would estimate something like 325, something like that. You estimate 325. Okay. That's what this company is all about. The number of work, 325, and we're 349.3. In due course, we'll be 350. In round numbers, let's say in a little over a year, we increased by 25 Bitcoin, if you want to use round numbers. That's what we'd like to do. We want to grow the number of Bitcoin. We want to grow the number of Bitcoin without expending our capital. That's the mission. Now, let me explain why that's the mission. It's very counterintuitive to the average observer of Consensus Mining. Why is it so important to retain the capital? It's important to retain the capital because virtually everybody who's involved in Bitcoin is unaware of the most salient fact of Bitcoin. The most salient fact of Bitcoin is the halving that occurs every four years. There's nothing more important than the halving. If the only thing you retain from this meeting, including forgetting how many Bitcoin we have and had on 12/31/2024, the halving is the most important thing. If you've got to remember one thing, you must remember one thing, that is the thing to remember. The halving, among other things, is what creates the value of Bitcoin. The halving refers to the block reward that the miners, I would prefer the term validators, but we have no alternative but to use the term miners, the miners receive for validating the transactions. That gets cut in half every four years. That's where the halving comes from. If you're interested in mining, you're interested in creating Bitcoin, the computational effort required to create a Bitcoin is going to double every four years. Alternatively expressed, that means the cost of producing a Bitcoin measured in work is going to double every four years. Now, Bitcoin is a commodity. If we were referring to any other commodity, and I'll use the examples of wheat or gold or soybeans or silver or oil, if it were the case that the cost of producing the aforementioned commodities were to double every four years, it doesn't necessarily logically follow that the price will double every four years. It doesn't have to, but it's a fairly good assumption that the price is going to increase substantially every four years. If we were in those commodity businesses and that was indeed the case, I would argue that'd be a salient factor, but it's not the salient factor in Bitcoin in the opinion of, I would say, the vast majority of people who have anything to do with it. I can tell you just from personal experience, I rarely get a question about it, and I only get a question about it when I provoke it. You could go on the internet right now and read countless articles about it, and you'll rarely hear it mentioned. Even when it's mentioned, it's not mentioned in its appropriate context and explanation. Normally when I do this, I go into a quasi-mathematical exposition of what makes the price of Bitcoin go up, and I use terminology like vectors. I'm not going to do that right now. I've made it a lot simpler to understand, and I realize that people just hate math. I personally like it, but they hate it. They just hate it. They don't want to think about it. Everybody in their educational career, let's say they were in college, they got to a point where they no longer had to take a required math class, and no one could force them to take that class, and they're never going to take it again. If they retained a textbook, you know what's happening to that textbook. It's not staying around very long. That happened to everybody. It didn't happen to me, but I'm like a used man. Every four years is this halving. Our halving, the next one, is going to occur on or about April 18th, 2028, a little over two years from now. That's not the exact date. That's the best approximation for a date we have right now. It might occur several days early. It might occur several days later, but that's the best estimate we have right now. When that happens, the current generation of mining equipment will not be utilizable. Anybody who is serious about mining Bitcoin knows or should know that equipment has to be replaced. Now, they should have known that the day of the prior hacking. They should have provided for cash reserve so they'll be able to replace their equipment. They didn't do that. How do I know they didn't do that? Because there are 14 publicly traded companies with SEC filings that I can read, and I can see they didn't do that. Now I'll explain, even though I'm taking a liberty here, I'll explain in my humble opinion why they didn't do that. Not because of any lack or foresight, because the general prevailing consensus and wisdom with regard to Bitcoin is that it's not a business of creating a commodity. It's very much akin to managing a portfolio. In managing a portfolio, it wasn't very many months ago that Bitcoin was going up at a fairly exciting rate, the cash they would view as a drag, so to speak, on their portfolio. The cash balances in a world of a rising market, if it were indeed a portfolio, which it is not, it should be minimized, and therefore, very few people had the cash reserves to replace their equipment. That being the case, and that's documentable. I'm not saying. I'm not even saying this as a critique of any publicly traded company. It's just an objectively verifiable fact. It's just the way it is. Since they're going to need to replace their equipment about now, roughly two years from the halving, in some cases sooner, they will be forced to realize they have to replace their equipment. Well, they'll need to get a cash reserve. How can they possibly get a cash reserve? The only alternative they have is to sell some Bitcoin. Now, different people might sell at different rates. Some people might sell the Bitcoin necessary in one day. Different people might sell it over other days. Some people have yet to start selling. Some people trade constantly and think they're going to make trading profits and then pay for their equipment. There are many variations upon a theme, but there's a certain selling that's going to need to be done. Has it exhausted itself yet? Very hard to say. We don't know. All we know is that what's going to happen a little over two years from now is the cost of producing a Bitcoin is going to be far higher than what it is right at this moment. Now, at some point in the next several months, the manufacturers of the mining equipment are going to introduce new models. They're going to be much more computationally intensive. They have to be more computational. We know that. They have to be more computationally intensive, meaning they'll operate at greater hash rates for a given usage of electric power, a given number of joules. Joules is a physical measurement of electric power. Anyway, that being the case, not only will the block reward be cut in half, but that the computational rate of the system known as the hash rate is likely to be far greater than what it is right now, and that's what you're competing with, greater hash. As a consequence, it'll be even more expensive to produce a coin, and the prices of the coins will rise accordingly. What we've tried to do is, in Consensus, avoid that problem by maintaining a cash reserve and to a large extent, not even directly mining Bitcoin, but doing something called Scrypt mining or merge mining. Scrypt is spelled S-C-R-Y-P-T. So we mine other coins, in our case, Dogecoin and Litecoin. We've retained Litecoin, although we didn't need to. We've sold the Dogecoin. We've been gradually, as time progresses, replacing our equipment. We've chosen not to pick a day and a point in time for reasons that are now self-evident to you. Replacing our equipment, we'll always be in the position to, generate some cash and increase our, the number of coins we have in our treasury. In the case of Dogecoin, some of it goes to pay, some of the proceeds go to pay our operating expenses. Some of it actually goes to buy more Bitcoin. This is why our Bitcoin is always increasing, and some of it goes when needed to buy more equipment. We do it gradually. We do it incrementally because we never know, and nor could we know, even if we work for the companies that produce the equipment, what equipment is gonna be produced. We could work for company A and be very, very versed in what company A is going to produce, but we don't work for company B. Company B may actually upset the entire system by having some new innovation in technology. I recall from the, and please correct me if anybody, if I err in saying this, when we started Consensus Mining as a corporation, I believe we had approximately 114 Bitcoin in our treasury. Is that more or less correct? That's about correct, yes. Okay, good. Now we have 349.3. In that time period, we have, in round numbers, tripled our Bitcoin. If we are increasing the amount of Bitcoin that we own, we have to do better than if we were an ETF. We just have to. Because an ETF doesn't increase the amount of Bitcoin per share. We are increasing the amount of Bitcoin per share. It's a mathematical identity. Forgive me for using that word, but that, or using that term, but that's what the term is. We have to do better. There's no question that we're going to do better. It's logical. It's logical for the simple reason that mining Bitcoin is hard work. Buying an ETF in the modern day is very easy. Why would anybody do the work unless they're going to have a better outcome than buying Bitcoin? Now you know why Bitcoin is likely to appreciate. I'm going to correct myself on one point in a minute, but I've been using the word appreciating and correct that in a moment. Now you know why it's going to appreciate. Now you know why we mine, because we're a better outcome than just buying Bitcoin. I correct myself. The word appreciate, I use the word appreciate because that's the word, that's the term that's in general usage. That's the term that's in parlance, but it's really not the term that should be used. This is the point I'm going to conclude with, and I'll open up for questions. Bitcoin is not appreciating. It just seems like it's appreciating or depreciating. All that's happening is that the number of dollars it has taken since the first Bitcoin was created in 2009, the number of dollars it has taken to purchase a Bitcoin has gone up. What's really happened is the dollar has consistently lost value against Bitcoin. Now, if all the media that talks on a daily basis about Bitcoin, if they were to say, instead of saying Bitcoin is up or down X% today, they were simply to say the dollar has lost or gained X% against Bitcoin today. They said the dollar has lost 99% of its value against relative to Bitcoin since 2009, since the inception of Bitcoin. If people said that, a lot more people would own Bitcoin. They'd understand a lot better. It's presented as if it's just another security. It's not a security. It has a fixed issuance policy. Even gold doesn't have fixed issuance. To compare Bitcoin and gold, right now gold is doing relatively well. If the price of gold goes high enough, more gold won't be created. There are points in time when gold has actually lost value against even fiat currencies, even though fiat currencies are very profligate issuance because a lot of issuance occurs when the gold price is too high. You could read history books about the California gold rush or the great Yukon gold rush or the South African gold rush and so on and so forth. Things have happened. Fixed issuance is what creates value relative to a profligate issuance like a fiat currency. Even gold supply can increase so substantially it's not a hedge against inflation, it actually causes inflation. Let's leave you with this thought and then I'll explain my thought and then we'll go to Q&A. In the days of the Spanish conquistadores, they came to the Americas for what purpose? To find gold. They found gold. They brought it to Europe. If you read a book on the history of Spain or a book on the history of the Habsburg Empire, because the Habsburgs also ruled Spain at the time, the importation of gold was the worst thing that ever happened to Spain. The reason it was the worst thing that ever happened to Spain is because gold was money. You could buy anything with gold. Of course, the money supply increased, the prices went up. There are Spanish historians that claim to this very day that the economy of Spain has yet to recover. The influx of gold due to the actions of the conquistadores. I'll leave you with that point. It's a little advertisement about Bitcoin. I hope you forgive me for giving Bitcoin a little advertisement. There you have it in, I hope, a succinct manner. Now we can address whatever questions you have, unless my colleagues would like to make some remarks. Would you like to make some remarks? I was just going to say that the Bitcoin we held at the end of 2024 was actually 320, not 325. Oh, well then our rate of growth was slightly greater. Yeah. Excellent. 320. I stand corrected. 320 in, let's call it a year and ten weeks. Is that about right? Roughly. A year and 10 weeks. Let's call it a year and 10 weeks. 320%-349.3%. I don't think there's any other publicly traded company that's achieved that. There are companies that have increased the amount of Bitcoin they have. Now they're selling their Bitcoin for reasons that are, you know now, and not selling it at very good prices with a view to buying equipment. We don't have to do that. Now you know why we do what we do. Anyway, questions. Anyone? I'd be delighted to answer them. You know, there is a question, a handful of questions that come in before the meeting that would just build on what you were just talking about. Okay. It was. We're going to those first. Well. Whatever. We'll go back and forth. I'm sorry. Okay. Whatever. I thought this would sort of tie into what you're saying. Fine. The question was simply management's long-term view of the Bitcoin mining industry. They noted that the Consensus itself has had an inability or has not generated operating profits with the exception of a few quarters. They're kind of plodding along. Do you believe it's an attractive business for mining? I think they are also including equipment purchases. When you think about equipment purchases coming up, is it an attractive business still for Consensus? Okay. A couple of comments about that. The first thing is, obviously, the price of Bitcoin is different on different days. If you try to calculate the profitability of mining, it's gonna be different on different days. When the price of Bitcoin is low, it's obviously less profitable than when the price of Bitcoin is high. The general tendency is whatever the profitability calculated thusly is, people have a tendency to internalize it. They really shouldn't because it varies. The only reason prices right now are depressed is because the people don't understand the significance of a halving. Now, it just so happens that the creators of Bitcoin, if you read their initial work, they're very wise in many ways. They must have put a lot of thought into this. They realized that people are going to try to either outsmart the Bitcoin protocol or they're going to ignore the Bitcoin protocol. Bitcoin protocol is overarching. It's unavoidable. Anybody who tries to function under normal rules of trading and tries to outsmart the Bitcoin protocol, in my humble opinion, is likely to be crushed. The most important thing about Bitcoin is the sanctity and purity of the protocol. People who develop trading strategies, well, Bitcoin is going up right now, and therefore I'm characterizing what people might say or might think. Bitcoin is going up right now, so I will or will not invest in Bitcoin, or I will or will not invest in equipment. In equipment, it's silly. The reason it's silly is because every four years, your equipment is going to be worthless. If you're running a business, your equipment is a depreciating asset. If you have a business and you're selling equity, which is perpetual capital, to buy equipment, which at best has a four-year life, probably a lot less than a four-year life, it's not a sound business strategy. There's nothing wrong with Bitcoin. There's nothing wrong with the protocol. There's just something wrong with the practitioners. The only thing wrong with them, there's not even a lot wrong with them. The only thing wrong with them is they chose reasons that are now obvious to not respect the protocol. I think what will happen is people will learn to respect the protocol, and I don't think the events of the current environment are likely to repeat themselves in the next halving cycle. I don't think it's likely to repeat itself because I don't think the market is gonna be providing any capital to people who engage in those practices. The experience of right now is not a very good guide to what's gonna happen in the next cycle. I hope that's an adequate answer to that question. Okay. I have others, but I'll look down here. Okay. We've got a couple questions that relate to the cash that the company maintains or capital allocation strategy. Noting that we have approximately two-thirds of the balance sheet in cash and another third in crypto, right? Which Reggie just discussed. This person's asking about how do you think about deploying it over time. The question that's come in online is along the same line. It's asking why not use the cash now to average in by buying equipment at a faster rate and build the equipment pool, if you will, in preparation. Okay. Obviously, we have a lot of cash. One thing I'll tell you, before I answer that question, let me tell you about the ratio. The roughly $60 million we had, we had that years ago. We just had less Bitcoin, and it was a lower price. What's happened is the ratio of Bitcoin at its market value in relation to cash, which is constant. The ratio has shifted and we didn't do anything other than continue mining. As we increase our number of coins, as Bitcoin rises in price, what's going to happen in the fullness of time is the ratio of cash to Bitcoin is going to gradually slip. There'll come a point in time when no one will ask that question. The reason no one's going to ask that question is because the market value of the Bitcoin and number of coins is going to be so large in relation to cash balance, it'll no longer be a relevant question. It's only relevant right now because the cash exceeds the value of the Bitcoin. The Bitcoin in the fullness of time, and won't take long, is going to exceed the value of the cash. Now, in direct answer to the question about why not use this moment to buy equipment, because the equipment that is available for purchase will not be utilizable at the latest by April 18th, 2028, and may well not be utilizable before that. It's not reasonable to believe that on April 17th, 2028, one will be able to utilize that equipment. The inexorable nature of the protocol is such that there has to be new equipment. The halving will occur. Why would I wish to buy equipment right now? I'm not really very interested in buying equipment unless there's some technological innovation that increases the computational intensity of the equipment that could be purchased. At the moment, we're not doing a lot in the way of equipment purchasing. Okay. I'll turn to another one that we've gotten multiple times. Are we considering or evaluating other strategic investments, other companies or other opportunities that would allow you to deploy some portion of that cash? The answer is, in one word, yes. I know you're going to say, what are you looking at? You know I, A, wouldn't wish to answer that question. B, I might create big problems if I did answer that question. The answer, simply put, is yes. We're going to have to leave it there. Okay. Let's turn down the whole period. Questions in here? Okay, we'll keep going. Keep going. All right, we'll keep going. Getting more specific to Consensus Mining & Seigniorage, people have noticed that we have our book value that we just published, which was at $12.31, about $41 a share. There's an apparent discount in the market to our book value. Just for reference, our share price right now is about $33, $33.5, I believe, today. Recognizing that our book value at December 31st, which includes the $346 Bitcoin, has declined in its quoted price, which is about $2 a share. As we're sitting here, that's a difference between roughly $39 and $33. If you wanted to address this apparent discount to market. Okay, the question is? What do you think about the difference between the book value per share and the traded price per share? What I think of that, in a word, it's preposterous. What I'm doing personally is, as we speak, I am buying shares of Consensus Mining. I really am. While the window is open, I'm a buyer of Consensus Mining. I don't mind telling you, I think I can tell you, of the trading volume such as this, let's just say I, we, are not a small factor in it. I think that's a fair statement to make. It makes no sense, especially since the other publicly traded companies actually trade at premiums to book value. Now think about it. If you're looking at it from my perspective. We are increasing the number of coins we have, and we are not using any of the cash. The other firms have operational losses. They are selling coins at various points in time to buy new equipment. I don't think right now is such a great idea. In any case, the number of coins they have is diminishing. They're selling at a premium. We're selling at a discount. I can tell you in trader's language why that is. Because you see, their shares are liquid, meaning you could buy lots of them. You could sell lots of them. A lot of people believe that if only the shares were sufficiently liquid, well, then all is well because you could always second guess the company. Eventually, our shares will be sufficiently liquid as well. What will happen in the fullness of time is people, for whatever reason, will sell shares. Our shares will appreciate. We will split the shares and all will be well. Just give it a little patience. I don't see any need to raise any capital. That's one of the easy way of getting more trading volume, but we don't need capital. The market is what the market is. In the meantime, we'll just go out and tell people what we're doing, and I think it's a much more sound investment strategy. We should bear in mind, I'm biased saying this, but, I think we should trade a substantial premium to book value. The reason we should trade a substantial premium to book value is because we are growing our book value. The companies that are growing their book value in virtually every publicly traded industry group, if you grow your book value per share, generally speaking, you trade at a substantial premium to book value. This is the only industry where the company that's growing its book value is trading at a discount to book value, and the companies that are diminishing their book value are trading a premium to book value. The critique is, well, if only our shares were more liquid. I don't agree with it, obviously, but it'll correct itself. It's a new industry. It'll correct itself in the fullness of time. I don't think it'll be long. Murray, just to follow up on that. I know you get this question often. If the price is preposterous, why not buy back shares? We get to hear that a lot. Why doesn't the company buy back at the discount? Why don't we buy? Well, two reasons. First, a minor reason. Well, if people think shares are not sufficiently liquid right now, you buy back shares, will be even less liquid. That's not a solution to the complaint about liquidity. More importantly, you never know. One never knows when an opportunity to deploy the cash in an industry that's going through some degree of turmoil. You never know when an opportunity, a suitable opportunity is gonna come available. All that really does is it forecloses all those opportunities. We'll see if we end up using it or not. If an opportunity presents itself, we'll use it. If it doesn't, we'll hold it. The extension to that same question is, if not shares, would you consider just purchasing Bitcoin at a faster rate than we already are? That defeats the whole purpose. The purpose. The only way you're gonna get their premium by mining is to show people that mining actually works. If you buy coins, you might make money on the coins you buy today. If you buy coins, people won't be able to understand how many coins were purchased and how many coins were mined. And since you always are in the position of buying coins or mining coins, and you're not clairvoyant, and sometimes you'll buy coins that'll actually decline in value. Now, the market's gonna face a certain amount of uncertainty. The premium to book value is gonna be, if we had a premium to book value, it would instantaneously disappear because the only way the premium can be maintained is if one's trading in relation to Bitcoin is flawless. It's not flawless, and sometimes you buy and the coins decline. There's always the opening up the opportunity that the net asset value could decline by making a trading error. I don't think that's in the interest of shareholders. Okay. We have a shareholder that's been around for five years and has asserted that the company or they've underperformed relative to the other Bitcoin miners and is asking what strategic steps do you think would change that trajectory that you would embark upon? I don't know that that's a correct statement. What I would like to know the names of which cryptocurrency mining companies Consensus Mining has underperformed. 'Cause basically, Consensus Mining is not public for even a year. Consensus Mining, as I recall, started trading in August, if I'm not mistaken. This is March. That's our public record, such as it is. I would invite the interrogator to give me the ticker symbol of the company or companies that whose stock prices outperformed Consensus Mining from the period August 2025 to March 2026. I'm not aware of any, but I'm happy to stand corrected. I think Consensus Mining and everybody's walking around with a handheld device, so they can verify it. There are 14 ticker symbols. Key them in and tell me what are their ticker symbols, and perhaps I'll stand corrected. From what I can tell, I think Consensus Mining has done better than all of them. Year to date, it's a very short period of time. It doesn't mean anything. Year to date, I think Consensus Mining has outperformed each and every one of them. That's. I looked the other day. Now, maybe something happened, but year to date, it's only 10 weeks, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from that. If it means anything, I think we've outperformed. The only reason that we could argue it even means anything is year to date, it's a negative market for Bitcoin. I think year to date, Consensus Mining as a share has done reasonably well, I think. One of the things that's happened with a lot of the mining companies seems to be that they are no longer just mining companies. They're kind of changing their business into either data center or something. I do know that some people look at some of those companies. They're not really pure mining companies anymore. Okay. It's just a comment. It's a comment. Are you inviting me to comment on that? No, you don't have to. Okay. Just, you know. Okay. I will anyway. It's really not a very good idea. I'm gonna explain why it's not a very good idea. At the moment, there's actually a shortage of data center space. What you're able to do is in your cryptocurrency mining data center, 'cause that's really what it is, data center. It's just a warehouse that has the infrastructure to draw large amounts of electric current. To unplug the Bitcoin miners, and you plug in the graphics processing units, GPUs, and it's fine. It's just that the Grace Blackwell equipment draws a certain amount of power. That's the NVIDIA equipment that is the standard GPU equipment. In about 12 months or so, they're gonna be moving to the Vera Rubin series. The data centers that exist right now, they're not optimized for Vera Rubin equipment. They won't be able to draw enough power. You'll make some money right now because people ordered equipment, and there's not enough data center space. A year from now, there'll be more data center space, and they'll take that equipment out of there. You'll be left with a data center that's not fit for purpose. I don't think that's a sound business strategy. Although, at the moment, it does generate revenue, such as it is. As long as everybody realizes that is not a long-term solution. It's a short-term fit. Doesn't mean that it ceases to be functional exactly twelve months to the day from today, but that's what's going to happen. The data centers that are under construction right now. Maybe I should put it this way, the power plants that are under construction to power their data centers, they're literally. It's mind-boggling. The blueprints, the plans that are being drafted right now, it's incredible. Literally incredible. Very few companies can be interested in warehouses that were formerly cryptocurrency mining centers to be data centers. It's a stopgap. That's all it is. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but it's not a viable business, in my opinion. Yes. The beauty of a live call, someone has asked about specific names. Okay. You mentioned one of the 14 competitors. They've thrown in the examples of Hut 8. Good. Riot. Hut 8 and Riot Platforms. Yes. Go ahead. I would say we don't have exact data on our- Okay. And but year to date, both of those are approximately flat. You know, Riot has had a run up and prior to that if you look at the one-year chart. If you wanna comment at all on Riot or- Yeah. Riot, one of the companies that I believe is converted itself to a data center, cryptocurrency buyer. Treasure. Treasury company. That's the right term. Okay. Okay. All right. Switching gears back a little bit, back to Consensus. Given what we've talked about, is there a possibility that if you fast-forward a few years from now, that we could still be holding a large cash balance and generating limited operating returns? You know, how do you avoid that? All right. Well, first of all, we didn't generate limited operating returns because if we had 114 coins when we started, and we have 349.3. Three forty-nine less 114 is, in round number, 235. 235x, let's say even $70,000. Let's do it, rather than do it in my head. 235x 70. I'm understating it. That's $16,450,000. Now counting, I think, 13,000 Litecoin. Does that sound about right? I think it's 13,000. I think it's 13,000 in increments. Let's say 13,000. Does that sound right to you? Yes, that sounds about right. I'm gonna say 55 for Litecoin. That's another $715,000. It's over $17 million. Since inception, we've created $17 million of shareholder's value. Given our capital base, it's a lot of return. The moment the Bitcoin price is depressed. How many years have we been at this? Since Consensus Mining was founded? Founded. Founded on December 1st, 2021. 2021. A little over four years. Does that sound right? Yes. Okay. $4 million a year sound right to you arithmetically in round numbers? Sounds about right. $4 million a year. That's a decent amount of value. It's great. At the moment we happen to be in a crypto winter, so maybe it's not a good measuring point. Maybe in a few months the Bitcoin price will be a lot higher and it'll be a more robust number. When it's not a favorable moment for us to be measuring, it's the moment we have, so let's do it. To me, that's a lot of money. To extend on this a bit more, if the circumstances change structurally in a way where you believe that crypto mining is no longer attractive, would you consider a return of capital or a liquidation of the business? If I thought cryptocurrency mining was no longer attractive, of course, I would consider it. Yeah. That's the premise. Yes, of course, I would consider it. Okay. Just, I happen to think it's very attractive. Yeah. We've had a question that asked about our board of directors and how they were identified and selected, kind of what they're bringing. Do you wanna put you on the spot for them individually? That was the question. Well, I didn't. I'm not on the board, number one. Number two, I didn't select them. Perhaps, Alan, you'd like to speak to that. Yes. I mean, we did a search for appropriately qualified individuals who were right for the board. Mr. Capps is on the board. He's with us here today. Andrew Webber is in a very related industry where it is a support industry for energy producers who are looking to use redundant energy that's not being used to mine for Bitcoin as well. We did do a search, and we did go through a proper vetting process with the senior management of the company at its formation. Okay. Okay. The answer. All right. Good. I'm gonna back up a step. We've had a sort of ongoing reply on one of our comments talking about Riot Platforms and Hut eight. Wonderful. I think you sort of answered this, but Riot over the course of the year was up 100%. Riot even, you know, 4x that over the course of the year. He's asking, can you comment on those returns? Which I think you mentioned that they're pivoted to other stuff. Well, you have me at a disadvantage. What I'm gonna do is I myself have a handheld device that I don't frequently use, but I'm gonna use it, and I will look at Riot. Remember, I invited you all to do this, you'll have to bear with me for a second. I'll have to get this information up so I know what I'm talking about. As far as I can tell by looking at this graph, in the last five years, according to what I'm looking at, it says here that Riot has lost 76.6% of its share price value. I will hold it up for the audience to see. That's what I'm looking at. Now what I'll do is there's some other features here. It turns out that Riot—I'll show you this in a second, but first I have to read it. Riot, according to what I'm looking at, looks like it came public in January 2003. It's a much longer track record than we have. In any event, since the day it came public, according to this—with this database, which I will turn the device to the audience to see it in a second. It says the loss in shareholder and per share value is 98.49% since inception, and I invite you to look. I felt that I didn't want to experience that. Please. I'm holding it up so you can all look at it. That's what I'm looking at. The audience at home, I invite you to look the same. This is the data that just came up. If there's further follow-up, I'm delighted to, Sure. I'm sure there will be. I'm delighted to engage. I'm absolutely delighted to engage. Great. I wanna go back a couple more steps. We were talking. By the way, I don't want to interrupt you. Oh, no. You see, this is 'cause I have money in this thing too, you see. I just wanted to comment, if I may. I don't really wanna lose 98.5% of my money. If it's all the same to everybody else, I really don't want to. Following the strategies of people who lost 98.5% of their money, I didn't think that was such a great idea. Now you understand, I hope, having studied the various filings and results, why I thought it better to follow another path. Go ahead and ask the next question. Okay. We're gonna go back to the beginning when you were talking about the halving. This question is that the halving only relates to the growth of Bitcoin, not the absolute level of Bitcoin. Why is it important if Bitcoin only grows by 1% per year versus 0.5% per year? Did not understand or seem that seemed relevant to the supply and demand of Bitcoin, and therefore its price. I'm not sure I understand the question. Perhaps you can explain it to me. I believe where the commenter is coming at is that the overall supply of Bitcoin today is not changing dramatically as a result of the next halving. The majority, so a large portion of Bitcoin has already been- Okay. You know, published, so the supply is not really changing at all. The halving is just a function for production, not of the overall supply and demand. The question therefore is? Relevance. Why is therefore halving Why is it important? The math is wrong. I didn't wanna get into the math, but you're looking at the wrong vector. You're looking at the rate of issuance in relation to the cumulative number of coins that have been issued. That's not the relevant metric. The relevant metric is the reward. Right now, you get three and one-eighth coins every 10 minutes. That's the reward. On or about April 18th, 2028, that number is gonna be cut in half. The number of coins that are currently being issued in relation to the cumulative number of coins that have been issued is not even a metric that concerns the rate of compensation, otherwise known as the block reward. We're talking about the block reward, what you get for the effort of mining, which is really what you get for the effort of validating the transactions. I'm glad the question was posed because it just illustrates it's not an easy subject. I'm not saying this in any critical vein whatsoever, because what's going on in Bitcoin is so counterintuitive that even when all the data is presented to people, it's very, very hard to grasp. It's not a criticism of anybody that it's difficult to grasp. The Bitcoin protocol was designed to solve the, really what's called the authentication problem, so maybe this will help in people understanding it. In 2015, all I knew about Bitcoin was it had something to do with cryptology, which is a branch of mathematics that I like a lot, and I knew the name Bitcoin. I knew nothing about it. I decided to read up on it. What I did is I printed out some articles. They were sitting on my desk for months. Every day I'd come in, and I said, "Today's the day I'm gonna read these articles," and I never did. Three or four months elapsed. Never did. 'Cause there was always something happening, and I could never do it. One day, I decided, "I'm just gonna close the door. I'm not gonna let anybody in. I'm gonna read these articles." The first two articles really were not directly related to Bitcoin. They were articles about something called. It's a branch of mathematics called the Byzantine Generals' Problem. The Byzantine Generals' Problem, I'll describe it non-mathematically, is a problem in what's called trustless proof. 'Cause mathematics really at its essence is all about proof. How do you prove things? For example, I don't wanna get into mathematics, but I'll do a little bit of it. In the world of, let's say, Euclidean geometry, how do you prove that two lines that in theory could be infinite are parallel? How did this person, Euclid, really 2,500 years ago actually do it without computers, without all the things we have right now? They didn't even have paper and pencils and erasers like we have today. It's really a triumph of the intellect. Along comes, in around 1836, three geometers, one was named Lobachevsky, one was named Riemann, and one was named Gauss, and they proved that parallel lines can actually intersect. When Euclid said, Euclidean geometry says parallel lines cannot intersect. Proved it, and it turns out that in spherical geometry, think of lines of longitude. They all meet at the poles, North Pole, South Pole. They're, but they're all parallel. They intersect. I'm only mentioning that not to give you a lecture on non-Euclidean geometry. I'm just showing you that these are not easy concepts to grasp. I'm mentioning that it took 2,300 years. For somebody, we live on a sphere, if you think of that. For three mathematicians to actually challenge Euclidean geometry didn't mean they disproved Euclidean geometry. It didn't even contradict Euclidean geometry in a different space. Parallel lines can intersect. In Euclidean geometry, which is two-dimensional, parallel lines don't intersect. Mathematics is something that you really have to think about. It's not self-evident. Okay. Back to the Bitcoin. I read these articles, Byzantine Generals, Trustless Proof. Okay. It turned out the Byzantine Generals' Problem is the general is the commander-in-chief. There are five subordinate generals. The general knows the battle can be won if all five generals attack simultaneously. But one of them is a traitor. He just doesn't know which one. Now, is there a solution? What can be done to make sure that the messages, the orders are not interfered with, and that the generals will do as they're ordered to? I thought there was no solution to it. Turned out, I said, "Well, how cool is this? There's actually a solution." Now, you might say it has nothing to do with Bitcoin. That sparked my interest. That's what made me read the Bitcoin working paper. If it wasn't for that, I would never have read it. Now reading the Bitcoin white paper, they're talking about money supply. I understand money and banking. They're talking about, in money and banking, what's known as the authentication problem, which I'll explain in a couple sentences. The authentication problem is, since the central bank controls the money, it's like trustless proof, like the Byzantine Generals. They say there's so many dollars out there. How do you know they're really telling you the truth? What are they like? They say the money supply is $23 trillion. What if it isn't? What if it's $24 trillion? It turns out they made a reference to a book that I had read. They had made reference to a book called Denationalization of Money, written by Friedrich Hayek in 1977. I had actually read that book. You ever have this experience, somebody refers to a book that you read many years before, and you know it's sitting there on your shelf, and you start thinking, "Where is that book?" You start looking for it, and I start thumbing through it, and start refreshing my recollection of it. The problem. Friedrich Hayek, it was written in 1977, the inflationary period, Hayek proposed that the problem of inflation will never be solved unless you privatize the central banking function, meaning take it away from the government. Now, you might agree or disagree with that as a solution, but whether you agree with it or disagree with it's unworkable. Why is it unworkable? It's unworkable because of what's called the authentication problem. Let's say they turn the central bank over to a private person. Let's say, for the sake of argument, they turned it over to me, yours truly, and I'm gonna create a currency, I'm gonna call it the Murray. Not the Bitcoin, the Murray, and there's 21 million of it. So I tell everybody, "There's 21 million Murrays out there." How do they know I didn't create 22 million and I kept 1 million for myself? Okay? That's the problem. How do you authenticate? Nobody could solve that problem until the blockchain. The people who wrote the Bitcoin white paper didn't invent blockchain. The blockchain made Bitcoin possible. All Bitcoin was for the writers, we don't know their identity really, of all we know about them is it was a labor of love. We don't know if it was one person. We don't know if it was a variety of person. I tend to believe it was a number of people. When you think of all the skill sets that were needed to compose a document like that, it's extremely well-reasoned and well thought out. I think it's almost beyond the ability of one person to devise something in computer science so comprehensive, so incisive, so substantive. I don't know. Maybe it was one person. They say it's a person called. Satoshi Satoshi Nakamoto. Anyway, but I don't know. All that happened was, because it was a labor of love, that all the coins in the so-called treasury, meaning the coins yet to be issued, were available to the public and gonna be issued in the fullness of time. If you're not gonna get any issuance, you're not gonna get a reward, what's the point? Why would anybody validate transactions? It's very hard to hack 'cause there's so many devices validating the transactions. When you read the working paper, the focus is not on, well, the money supply is not changing, so what's the big deal? The focus is but the block reward is being cut in half. Your reward is being cut in half. If you want to produce the same number of coins, it's gonna take twice as much work to do it. If you wanna live with half as many coins as you mined the prior block reward period, you have to do the same amount of work to get half the coins. Think of it this way. You're doing a job, whatever it is. You're working in a factory, and you're making something. Maybe you're making water bottles like this, and they're willing to pay you $100 to make 100 water bottles, but that's your quota. You know what? Now they decide you're still gonna make 100 water bottles, but we're gonna pay you $50. If you wanna only make 50 water bottles and have more free time, and that's fine with us, the owners of the factory, we're gonna pay you $25. Did you say you got a salary cut? That's the way it is. Now, in Bitcoin, the way you square the circle, so to speak, is the market value of Bitcoin grows because more work is being done. That's why it's called proof of work, the whole system. More work is being done, therefore, it's inherently more valuable. Just like why does the price of gold go up? There's plenty of gold in the world. Because the gold that exists is harder to extract from the earth in the fullest of time, progressively, even with the modern advances in technology. That's what happens. I'm just giving you a little information to show you that understanding even the rudiments of Bitcoin, it's so different than the rudiments of the general supply and demand systems that we deal with on a day-to-day basis. It's very easy to go awry. In the supply and demand world in which we live in, you can understand why the management of cryptocurrency mining company would say, "Well, the profit today on mining a Bitcoin is X," whatever that number is. If it is sufficiently robust, it makes sense to consult an investment banker, raise capital, and buy more equipment to increase the profits, especially if the shares can be issued at a premium to book value in a manner anti-dilutive to the shareholders. You could see why a logical person would do that, except the problem with it is, it's not the logic of the Bitcoin world. If you try it, you're, you might be fully in accord with the basic principles of corporate finance as taught in the foremost business schools in the world today, but you're acting adversely to the basic principles of Bitcoin as postulated in the original working paper, which needs to be read. Not merely read, it needs to be reflected upon. It takes. Once I read that, it took me a long time to. I didn't read it and exit my office thinking, "Now I understood Bitcoin." I understood some rudiments of it. All I understood at that point was, it's very different than anything I encountered before. Therefore, I said, "I'm never gonna understand it unless I mine." I decided before Consensus Mining, I am going to mine. I'm gonna buy some Bitcoin too. I did buy some Bitcoin. Matter of fact, I walked into this very room in a research meeting. I walk into the room, everyone's gathered here. I tell everybody, "I'm gonna buy some Bitcoin." They look at me like I'm out of my mind. I say, "But it's my money. I wanna buy Bitcoin. I don't care what you say, I'm buying Bitcoin." Not only that, I am gonna mine Bitcoin. How do I mine Bitcoin? First, I have to figure out how to do it, and you have to get these devices. In those days, there was something called the S9. Now, to show you how we've advanced, the state-of-the-art, which I wouldn't even buy today, is the S23. I don't think there is an S23 anywhere in the United States of America today. Is there an S23 anywhere that you are aware of in the United States of America? I've been looking to see if they're available for purchase, and I've not been able to find any. They're not available. We couldn't buy them anyway. If they were available, I wouldn't buy them. It doesn't really matter. It's moot. Anyway, I gotta buy the S9. I make some inquiries. Where can I obtain the S9? How do I do it? After making suitable inquiries, I was told the only place you can buy it is in the People's Republic of China. I thought to myself, "I bought $250,000 worth of equipment. It means I have to take $250,000 and send it to some person in the People's Republic of China and in the hope they're gonna send me back this equipment." It gave me pause for reflection, and I said, "Should I really do this? Is this not irresponsible?" I said, "I'm doing it." I sent them, I wired them money, and I guess 6 or 8 weeks later, I get the equipment. We're plugging it in, testing it, we're using it. It's all working except for one device. One of them, because we bought $250,000. I think they were $2,500 a piece. I think we bought 100. Maybe I'm off, but I think we bought 100. Of the 100, one of them wasn't working. What do we do? It says here on this document, it comes with a warranty. How do we get fulfillment on the warranty? We have to ship this back to China. We're going to ship this device to China. Okay, let's pack it up. Let's ship it. Even I thought, I'm never going to see that device again. They fixed it. They sent it. It worked. It actually worked. I'm telling you all this to see that it was very hard to understand it as a pure exercise in intellect. You had to do it and measure results. Once you did it, your perspective changed radically. That's what was required. I thought, and I still think, the key variable is to increase the number of coins. What the other companies were doing, which I didn't agree with, I didn't think was even relevant to me. I looked at it because maybe they know more than me and maybe I'll learn something from it. The math didn't suggest that any reasonable amount of money was going to be made. The point is that I showed you the results that I thought I didn't know at the time. I just suspected at the time that the results were going to be wholly unsatisfactory. Now you've seen the outcome and the results, I think you'll agree, are wholly unsatisfactory. They're always, like any stock, points in time for whatever reason that shares go up. The fact of the matter is we're using Riot as an example and not to cast any aspersions on Riot. I can well understand why they reached the conclusions that they reached. I have nothing but respect for other people's points of view. I'm not really here to criticize it, but I felt that that outcome was mathematically predictable. I didn't want to share it and I picked a different strategy. If majority of it, the only thing you'll say about these companies is these companies, these 14 publicly traded companies, they control a very, very substantial portion of the cryptocurrency mining equipment of the planet. Therefore, they are affecting the marketplace. My only supposition without any critique or any aspersions being cast on them, given the outcome, now you've seen what the outcome is, my investment thesis is the market will no longer subsidize that. They will not be able to sell equity to do that. Therefore, the field is going to be left with the few people who understand the subject in a very different way. We're not likely in the next block reward cycle to have an experience like we have had in the past two block reward cycles. That's my thesis. I don't think it requires a lot of patience. I don't even think we have to wait as long as the halving. At some point in time, whatever people are doing, it's going to exhaust itself in the not too distant future. Is that a week? I don't know. Is that a month, three months, six months? I don't know. It will rationalize itself. I think we'll have a very robust result. Anyway, now you know the story of my Bitcoin experiences, such as they are, at least in summary. I have only one question, I think, remaining. The last one that I have, or at least I think I have, is related to the management services arrangement between Horizon Kinetics Asset Management and Consensus Mining & Seigniorage Corporation. Yes. The questioner noted that it's been changed, presumably for higher fees. If you would just address that relationship and the agreement. Yeah. Well, it's really, in essence, a money management agreement. The agreement applies to the equipment, the depreciated value equipment, and the market value of the cryptocurrency. The normal investment management fee is 1%. We're not even charging that. We're charging in basis points. How many basis points would you say that is? Oh, yeah. It'd be very little. Would you say it amounts to as much as, and I'm asking you because you're objective, would you say it amounts to as high as one basis point per annum? Probably not. I would need to use my handheld calculator. Use your handheld calculator. I think Alun's doing it for you over there. Alan's doing it. Would you say it amounts to one basis point? I think so. One basis point. There. An aside, if I may. My father didn't like if you used a calculator. He didn't like it. He says, "Why are you using a calculator?" You should always do it by hand so you will know. Don't use a calculator because once you know how to do it, you don't need a calculator. That was actually pretty good advice. A basis point. Now why do we so obviously the fee itself is irrelevant. Why do we do it? Well, because if, and you can address this further, Mark, if we didn't charge the one basis point, this is de minimis fee. If we didn't charge it, there are certain notations that will be put on our financial statements. I believe there'll be some goodwill. We have to assign some goodwill to our agreement because the recipient of services, Consensus Mining, is getting something for nothing. I wouldn't say goodwill, but there could be a charge. In some different reporting environments, you could have a fair value calculation for that, and you would charge the expense, and it would run through. It's sort of a funny money concept. Right. because you have a non-cash expense. Okay. What would have happened is it's some sort of intangible. Is that fair to say? Yeah. It's a contribution of a shareholder. Right. Right? That would, of course, it would be with zero equity impact. Right. You would just have a- Right. A non-cash contribution and a non-cash expense. Okay, what it would do is, if we didn't charge the money, it would complexify our financial statements, and every quarter people would ask, "What is this non-cash charge? Why do you have it?" To avoid it, we charge this de minimis one basis point fee, which is by the way fixed. Since the number of coins are very likely to increase, and since, in my humble opinion, the market value of Bitcoin is gonna go up, but the fee is itself fixed, so therefore we, with some appreciation, I think it will be less than a basis point. Is that correct, okay? Yeah. Think so. Okay, good. Our goal is to not alter the fee in absolute value, but to get the fee less than a basis point. Let's see if we can do it. As luck would have it, another question's come in. Excellent. Can you comment on what size acquisitions you would consider with $60 million of cash? What would be comfortable spending for the right deal? Well, for the right deal, I would spend almost all of it. As a matter of fact, the reason for being a public company is not even so much for the cash. The reason is because we could, in theory, at the right valuation, issue equity. Possibly. Incidentally, we don't have to spend any cash to make a cash acquisition because we could use the cash as collateral. We could borrow against it. In theory, we could take T-bills, and we could borrow against it, and we don't even need to expend our cash. There is a virtually limitless number of institutions that would lend us money for government securities as collateral. We could do a cash acquisition, you know, need to spend any of the cash. Any other questions? I have a question right here. Please. Have you had any luck with this idea of Validator as a Service for some of the other validators out there? Well, I'm exploring that. Step one is, people have to understand what Bitcoin validation is. Right now we're on the learning curve. What you just heard from me is being reprised by me vis-a-vis various people. It's an educational process. First, or let's say not very many months ago, there was euphoria around Bitcoin. Now, whatever the opposite of euphoria is, I don't want to use the word despair. I don't think it's quite despair, but it's certainly not euphoria. It's an educational process, and that's where I am with it. I like the educational process role. Just carry on. As they say in the U.K., keep cracking on. I like that expression. I'm cracking on. Yes. What about lending the Bitcoin? What's your thoughts on is that gonna happen or is that something you'd ever consider doing? We haven't lent any Bitcoin thus far, with one salient exception. Salient exception is I lent some of my Bitcoin personally, small amount. I think I lent 3 coins. What did I lend? It was very low single digits, yes. I think it was three. I lent three coins, which is actually not a small amount of money. I lent three coins because I was testing the lending market. For a while there, I was in danger of losing them all. Was I not? You were. One of the many services you get free in the service of testing, I put some of my personal capital at risk. Thankfully, I can afford it, and I want to see how secure the lending is, and it was not as secure as I thought it was. Happily, I recovered all my Bitcoin. I believe it was in round numbers, three Bitcoin. If it's secure, if it works the way securities lending works in actual securities, where it's fully collateralized by treasuries, I would do it. At the moment, they don't fully collateralize with treasuries, so I'm not doing it. I don't think there's a lot of risk to be fully collateralized with treasuries, and then we get an interesting income on it. That'd be fun. I do not have any further questions. I've got one more, Murray Stahl. Please. Humor me on this one. Yes. Reconcile my incorrect thinking. Okay. Assume we get to the halving. We're in 2028, and I'm just going to make some assumptions here. Given past performance, let's say we add another 25 coins per year. We end 2028 with 400 coins. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that Bitcoin hits $200,000 in the next three years-five years. Our balance sheet will be $80 million, if my math is correct, around there, of Bitcoin. We'll have our $60 million because we are generating money by not really spending any money. That is the function of this business. Right. Let's say you do get your 3x book value on that business. You're at a 300, let's call it a $1 million market cap company or a 3-4x return over, let's call it a 10-year period of time, where the underlying asset has grown 200%, 200x. Is that correct? 'Cause it was about $10,000 when we started in 2021. Right. So- Oh, the- That's the question is how do you reconcile that as an investment? If that were to happen, now we're in a position to use our equity. There is plenty of Bitcoin treasury companies, public and private, that are having their difficulties, and there are plenty of mining companies having their difficulties, and there's plenty of assets at the right price that we would be delighted to acquire if we had the valuation on the equity. That's one of the reasons you have equity. Equity, at the end of the day, is just a kind of currency. It's just an alternative to issuing cash. It's quite possible. If we get our valuation, there's lots of things to do. Now, of course, we don't know what that's going to be. We don't know what condition it's gonna be two years hence. If all works out and we get our valuation, there'll be things to do in the mergers and acquisitions sense of the word. That's why I follow all these companies. I pay close attention to what the public company is doing, and there are even more private companies. I pay as close attention as I can possibly pay. I just think, and I think the record shows that this is a more sound strategy than the strategies currently being used. I'm not saying that they're irrational strategies based on the experience, such as it is for the last century in corporate finance. What everyone did is very reasonable. It's just not reasonable in relation to the world of Bitcoin and its associated protocol. Other than that, I can't blame them. It's fairly reasonable. It's just not gonna work in that world, but it's reasonable. There are probably a lot of great assets that we could acquire. Hopefully, it'll be available, and hopefully, we'll get our valuation. I think we will. Other questions? Okay, there are not, so we'll conclude the formal part of the meeting right now, and I'm gonna stick around in case there's always somebody who wants to ask me something, not for the record. I'm gonna stick around. That's my tradition. Give you the opportunity to do that. For the people who are online, thank you so much for attending. If it turns out that a question occurs to you in the aftermath, it happens to me, so it might happen to you, don't hesitate to give us a call or contact us, and we will be delighted to get you an answer to your question. As you can see, I think we like having this conversation. A lot of great questions, and I think dialogue helps everybody. Thanks again for attending. Of course, we're gonna reprise this from time to time. Great. This concludes today's annual meeting. You may now disconnect.