Good morning. Good morning. Reggie Smith here. I cover Fintech with JP Morgan, and I am excited to interview and catch up with Eido Gal, CEO and founder of Riskified. I guess it's been a year since we've spoken in person. Good to see you again. How are you? Good to see you again, Reggie, as well. Glad you guys made it in okay. I guess always a great place to start is hearing the Riskified story, the problem you guys are solving, how you're tackling it, who you compete with, how you make money. Maybe start there and we can kind of delve from there. Sure. We started by helping e-commerce merchants manage online fraud, and that's a big and an increasing problem: people stealing credit cards and using them to purchase stolen goods. We understood that merchants were trying to manage this process internally using internal tools, you know, maybe paying some other vendor to create some logic and rules. In early 2013, my co-founder and I said, "Hey, we think we can leverage machine learning." Back then, it was not AI yet. It was machine learning, machine learning, cybersecurity, and big data to create better models to catch the bad guys. We started targeting large, sophisticated enterprise e-commerce merchants and did that for them. It was very successful. I would say in the past few years, we've also expanded, leveraging similar technologies to solve other problems across the stack, things like policy abuse, dispute management, and account security. Yeah. It's, it's funny you, you mentioned that, and I think it was a few quarters ago we were talking, and I didn't realize just how large the policy stuff was. I've always thought about fraud, and I think fraud is running at about $50 billion globally, if I'm not mistaken. But the policy side of it, where people are taking advantage of returns or, or other things, is I think almost double that. Do I have the numbers right? And, and, you know, maybe talk a little bit about that and, and how well, merchants appreciate that policy is a big piece of it and what you guys are doing there. Sure. Great question. So look, when we, when we come to a merchant, we first try to understand what's their cost structure for managing fraud. And a typical merchant would say, "Look, I'm paying 25 basis points in chargebacks." Chargebacks are, you know, the bad transactions that they approve that they need to pay back. On top of those 25 basis points, I pay three basis points for my internal staffing. I have an analyst and two data scientists. And on top of that, I pay two basis points to my current solution provider that helps me, you know, write rules and manage manual review. So my cost of managing fraud is 30 basis points. That's the cost side of the equation. And then on the other hand, you have the approval rate, right? It costs me 30 basis points, and I approve 90% of transactions. 10, 10% of transactions I proactively turn away because I fear they might be fraudulent. The initial pitch for us, we provide something called a guaranteed model. We tell a merchant, "Look, we're gonna guarantee you both the cost and the approval rate, so you can really let go of managing this process. It's not your core competency. You should not be doing it." For this merchant, we would come, we would say, "Hey, look, instead of 30 basis points, we would provide you, let's say, 24 basis points, right? A nice 20% reduction in cost." On the approval rate side, we would guarantee a 93% approval rate. Again, made up numbers. You get guaranteed cost savings, and you get a guaranteed incremental lift in approval rates. Around the time of the IPO, we did an analysis for our top clients, and we found that on average, we reduced costs by over 30% and approval rates, I think, by over 7% or 8%. Very meaningful uplift. That is the value from the Chargeback Guarantee. As we talked to our merchants over the years and understood what other problems they have, it was clear that policy abuse is a major issue because, and the fraudsters figured this out relatively early on, I do not need to steal your credit card to purchase something. I can just order something online, and I can call the retailer later on and say, "I never received my package. I want a refund," or, you know, "You sent me the wrong size. Send me a new pair of whatever." There is massive abuse in refund and return requests. We figured out that leveraging similar technology and the same data network and the same machine learning platform, we could use that to identify fraudulent refund and return requests. What we've been seeing so far in most, virtually all cases, is that we're able to block up to 10%, north of 10% of refund and return requests without incremental false positives. Mm-hmm. When you think about that, that's massive. That's money that the retailer would've just handed back to the fraudster that they can now keep. Again, each one has their various ways of measuring the false positives, but it's usually around callbacks and customer satisfaction rates, which tend to shoot up even though they're refunding less. That's a very meaningful problem for them that's top of mind that's been gaining great traction for us. It's funny. You describe it, and it sounds like your services, if they work well, a lot of times the merchant avoids expenses. They may get additional revenues because things are approved, but those are very, you know, kind of hard to quantify or maybe even appreciate by the merchant. Like, how do you guys educate them so that they see that value, that they're getting from you? Because I have an insurance policy for my car. I've never had an accident, but I pay it every six months, right? And I hate to pay that, right? But I don't fully appreciate it. Do your customers fully get what you guys are providing? And how are you trying to bridge that gap for them? Yeah. I think it's important for us to always say, "Look, we don't view ourselves as an insurance company." The reason is when you have that car insurance, someone's saying, "Listen, I think the probability of Reggie's car being stolen is X, and I'm gonna take a premium to that." That's the insurance model. We're kind of saying, "Listen, we just think we're so good and accurate at looking at a transaction and understanding if it's fraudulent or not that we would have a much lower probability of making a mistake." The service to you, the merchant, is gonna be much, much greater if we can provide you that certainty and that guarantee. We can actually monetize it better, right? Instead of giving you just a recommendation or a score and charging you a cent or two cents, we can provide you that guaranteed performance across both approval rate and cost, and end up making, you know, kind of net 10 cents. I think you're always exposed to the value that we provide you because you know your approval rate pre-Riskified, and you know your approval rate post-Riskified, and you also know your cost structure, right? You know how much you were paying back in chargebacks, and you see the value that we're providing you right now. Now, you touched on something I wanted to get into, was the different models that are out there. So you guys are doing, you know, full Chargeback Guarantee. You're laying or overlaying some of the, the Policy stuff. Your competitors, I know some of those guys are doing risk score. Maybe talk about the difference there, and whether or not they're also offering ancillary services like policy protection. My sense is that they aren't, but maybe you can catch us up on the, the competitive landscape. Sure. I think for us, you know, I was talking to a merchant a few months ago, and I was starting to explain why we think Chargeback Guarantee is a good model. He said, "Look, I don't need you to explain anything. I had, with my, you know, with my scoring vendor, he had a model drift over the weekend. I'm not sure what that is, and there was a bug somewhere or an integration issue, and I just lost $5 million. Okay? I don't want that. I don't wanna have continuously to hire a team to manage this process. I want you to guarantee what the ROI is, and I want you to manage that part of the business." I think that's the value in the Chargeback Guarantee. I think inherently, a company like ours that's dedicated to solving this problem with hundreds of engineers, data scientists, and analysts continuously working and solving the ongoing and new fraud attacks and vectors that, you know, happen daily, we can drive better performance than a single individual merchant, even a large one. Yeah. Right? I think most people understand that. That's why I think it makes more sense for a single company like ours to solve that, and that's why we can provide the bigger ROI. At the same time, there's always gonna be merchants or fraud teams within these merchants that wanna continue to manage and build their kingdom in that part of the world. In that sense, there will be people that manage it differently. Yeah. From a platform perspective, that's probably one of been the most helpful thing in increasing our win rates and getting some velocity over the past few quarters. I think we share that our competitive win rates have been, you know, above 70%. Yeah. Increasing over the past several quarters. A big chunk of that is because of the platform, right? And I'm not just providing you the value on the Chargeback Guarantee piece. I can now also solve the problem around Policy. And Policy, we talked about, you know, finding abusive refund and return requests, but it's not just that. Policy also helps with launches if you have a limited, you know, edition sneaker that you're launching, making sure that the inventory gets to the real and good buyers and not, you know, a bunch of scalpers. Same thing with the ticketing event. It also helps you manage your coupons and discount codes so someone's not abusing a 10% off first-time customer for the 10th time. It helps with item limits and resellers. So there's a lot of different use cases. Yeah. That merchants use to build, to make sure that they run their business correctly. When you think about our Dispute Resolve product, which helps manage the representment process for fraud chargebacks and non-fraud chargebacks, it's become a core part of our merchants' workflow. We recently, we have this thing where at our management meeting, we'd like to bring in a Riskified customer to share their experience, you know, what's great, what's not great, what they would change, and just provide general feedback from the customer. Yeah. We asked them, "What's the, what part of the stack is providing the most value?" He said, "From a business perspective, the chargeback has the highest ROI, the Chargeback Guarantee, right? It is the highest approval rate. It reduces a significant portion of the cost. For me and my team, the Dispute Resolve product is the one we love, and we use it day to day. Mm-hmm. Right? It, like, makes our lives easier. We have a team of 16 people using it, and I think that's great. I love that. Even if, like, the financial ROI to the organization is slightly smaller, our core customer now, ha, we're part of their workflow. Yeah. Not just a decisioning engine. I think that's really great. I went on a tangent. You asked me about the platform. I think it's been helping us on the competitive win rate side significantly. Yeah. Part of that is because no one has that breadth or accuracy or capabilities, probably the Policy product more so than the others. Yeah. Okay. Couple things there that I want to dig into. So you guys, and we were talking about this yesterday morning, you guys did $140 billion in, I guess, reviewed volume last year. And one of the things I did not appreciate, so obviously the global e-commerce market is about $6 trillion, but that $140 billion is pretty, pretty remarkable. A couple things that come to mind. I think Shopify processed $180 billion, so you are not far below them. Obviously different business model. I think about Affirm, another company that I cover, they did about $40 billion in sales volume. Like, it really puts your size and scope into perspective. As I think about the market, to the extent that you can, if there's $6 trillion in, you know, kind of e-commerce volume globally annually, you know, what proportion of that do you think is handled with in-house solutions? How much of that is on, like, a risk scoring versus something, you know, more like the Chargeback Guarantee that you guys are, are offering? Like, how, how do you kind of see the market, in the different pockets there? I think that is an interesting callout, right? The fact that we, so some platforms are saying, "Look, I'm gonna be doing a lot of things, and then my take rate is gonna be, you know, kind of relatively higher. My GMV is gonna be lower, and I'm gonna probably be attracting more SMBs." We said, "Look, we're gonna specialize at doing something small but important and something that's relevant for basically every single e-commerce transaction," right? Because of that specialization, we believe we're the best in the world at looking at a transaction and understanding if it's fraudulent or not. Now we're using the same engine to understand policy abuse and different components. We went incredibly deep there, and that also informed our decision to really focus on an enterprise, right? Because enterprises, they would say, "Look, I'm not just gonna use whatever my e-commerce platform." I'm, you know, at that point, they're not an e-commerce platform. They have a multi-acquirer setup, and they use best-of-breed solutions, and they're gonna test, and they're gonna understand what works the best. We think that's really a great strategic fit for the type of product that we've built. I think there is something special about building something that is so good and is so optimized at something, you know, kind of small but inherently important, like the Chargeback Guarantee piece that we do. On the one hand, I would say we're proud of the $140 billion. On the other hand, to your point, there's still $6 trillion in e-com opportunity. You know, obviously, as you go from that $6 trillion attempt to the SIM, there are some segments that you would need to, to remove, whether it's PSD2, China in volume. Sure. You're still left with a large multi-trillion dollar opportunity. If you think about that, the vast majority of that market is still on what we consider legacy solutions. These legacy solutions are managed by internal teams. Sure. It is a combination there. We think that our market share gains are gonna be most pronounced relative to that portion of the market. There are some other kind of newer generation players, I would say, that are, you know, behind us on scale and profitability. We also see them slightly less. We shared a bit about the competitive win rate. I think for us, the challenge has been, how do we get more at-bats? Yeah. How do we convert more of these merchants? Let me just give you a concrete example. You can come to a merchant. They have, you know, 25 bps in chargeback and 90% approval rate, okay? Now we're saying, "Look, I can provide you 18 bps. That's great cost savings, and I can increase your approval rate by 2%." You know, I might need to have, I only have integration resources for two tools this year, and this is competing with a marketing solution, and I'm not sure if I can get it, you know, across the finish line from a business perspective. What we've seen is because we're now selling a wider platform offering that's providing more value, and it actually also has more direct value to the teams that, you know, contract with us, like those risk teams, like the Dispute product that they love. It's helped us generate more pipeline recently. I think we just shared on the recent earnings that pipeline has basically as big as it's ever been, has really increased Q1 because of some of these reasons. Are you finding that your conversations that you're having with different people at the company, how has that evolved? Has it moved from risk folks to maybe marketing, maybe CFO? Like, where, or does it vary? What can you tell me about that, and that evolution over time as you've added more products and more value? Yeah. It varies. It's interesting. You know, we have a large user conference, Ascend, and we did kind of an online survey there. What part of the organization do you sit? And I think it was like, 30% sit under product, 30% sit under the overall CFO office, you know, maybe another fifth somehow under security. It can be varied, and we can touch different parts of the organization. When we have a large strategic client that we work with, you know, we would have an executive sponsor that tries to work with their, you know, C-level leadership to understand what their priorities are. We would definitely interact with their risk and payments team. Sure. Our Policy product is much more involved with their customer, you know, customer happiness support, however they wanna define those teams. Our Account Secure product is slightly more in the security domain 'cause it's right somewhere around like bot prevention and mitigation, which tends to sit with the security. You start to have more touch points. Sure. Within the organization. Yeah. That's definitely evolved. It's maybe a tough question here, but if you could snap your fingers and talk to, you know, any department at a company, to sell your, your products and your offering and get a yes and then get it implemented, like, who would that be? Like, if it were up to you and you could dictate who you, who you spoke with. I mean, look, the CFO is the one that, you know, understands the value proposition from a dollar and cents perspective. Yeah. That's the easiest thing, right? Wait, this is my cost structure today. This is my cost structure tomorrow. That's the value on the approval rate. It's a no-brainer, right? You need to make sure that you tie in other parts of the organization to support that move. Sure. Right? 'Cause the CFO is predominantly not gonna force massive change within an organization. Right. If the team is, you know, against that in most situations. I think it needs to be multi-threaded, right? You need to have widespread support internally to, to make this type of enterprise change. What is it? Thinking about, like, that process from hello to, you know, contract signed to implementation, what is that timeline? I know you talked about the pipeline being super strong today. I think the strongest it has ever been, but, like, walk us through, like, that timeline and how long it takes to find, sign, implement, and get revenues flowing for a customer. I mean, look, the integration itself can take anywhere from eight to twelve weeks. Obviously, slightly longer, slightly shorter, depending on how many people are working on it, how involved it is, but that's the general timeframe. The sales process itself could be one to two quarters once there's a real sales process, not just, hey, let's say hello and talk again in a month or so, but once there's a real opportunity here, once we identify the segment, once there's data sharing. End- to- end for kind of the large clients, you know, three quarters is a realistic timeframe. Mm-hmm. As you start thinking about slightly smaller enterprises, you know, in the range of $50 million-$1 billion, that can be even faster. Got it. I know you guys a few years ago kind of revamped your go-to-market strategy. On the last call, you talked about, you know, having the biggest pipeline ever. I'm sure there's a link there, but maybe could you talk about, you know, how that change has manifested and how you changed how you go to market and that process of building the pipeline? What connections can I draw between that change and the improvements you've seen there, if any? If I were to unpack the pipeline, I would say number one is probably the product platform and the conversations it enables us. Number two, we've actually seen in a lot of merchants that we speak to that there's been a large increase in sophisticated fraud over the past few months. They've been saying, "Listen, I'm not sure what's going on. My fraud losses have increased. Can you help?" That's number two, and that's just more industry or market-related. Number three, a few years ago, we started to really build out a global go-to-market presence, in APAC, in LatAm, in specific countries there. We've seen that, you know, obviously, these are all enterprise sales. By the time from having the first boots on the ground there to having a few, you know, kind of referenceable clients and the local market feeling that you're there to stay and be a significant player there, I think we're reaching that point in a few regions, and that's helping develop pipeline there. I wouldn't say it's a shift from the strategy we started a few years ago, but it's probably just more of a manifestation of the success we've had there. Okay. You reported results yesterday morning, solid results. They were in line with our expectations. You reiterated guidance. I think one of the concerns that we had gotten from investors going into the quarter was that you guys have exposure to travel, discretionary spending, et cetera. With all of the uncertainty around tariffs, it does not appear to have impacted your business or your outlook. Maybe talk a little bit about the diversity and the strength that you are seeing in your business that gives you confidence in the back half of the year and your outlook. Yeah. Our business, a third of our business is tickets and travel, about another third is various forms of fashion, luxury fashion, fast fashion, sneakers. There are different sub-industries there. Another third is, you know, kind of whether electronics, groceries, food delivery, money transfers and remittance, a lot of other smaller categories for us. Obviously, there was some concern around travel with some of the airlines pulling guidance, traveling to the United States being weaker. We did not see that, whether it's because some of our merchants are more exposed to inter-European or different forms of accommodations. It's not a full analysis that we had ready or understood, but we're not seeing that softness on the travel side. Yeah. Also, some of the strength of the new business was helping offset that. On the fashion side, we anticipated, especially in the luxury and sneaker kind of categories, to see softness, not as pronounced as the softness that we had last year. I think we saw that maybe even slightly, slightly more than we thought. Overall, we saw a resilient consumer and, you know, kind of April trends holding up well. I think what gave us some confidence in retaining the guidance, even given the potential, you know, kind of uncertainty in the back half of the year, is that kind of size of pipeline and the pace of new business and how that's been trending. No, that makes a lot of sense. I think it's a good time to talk about, you know, I've known you guys since the IPO, where you guys were super, super fast growing, not very profitable. You guys have scaled into that. Maybe talk about your longer range or medium range targets, and what gives you confidence in getting that EBITDA margin up to that midterm range. If you think about the trajectory of Riskified over the past three years, I think we've basically reduced expenses every single year while maintaining kind of revenue growth and I think to some years margin expansion. Basically from that 50-something percent gross margin that we have, we've been able to flow everything through to the bottom line. Sure. I think it just shows the inherent kind of scalability of the business, and how we're able to automate and scale it. As we look forward, I think we wanna make sure that we're both reinvesting correctly to capture some of the growth opportunities ahead of us, but also making sure that we reach, you know, I think we shared kind of 15%+ North Star target over the next few quarters, in 2026. That continues to be a focus. You know, does it end at, is the target 20%, 25%, 30%? I mean, depends on the time horizon, right? There's no reason that you can't create incremental, you know, margin every single year that goes by. Thinking about it more broadly, we talked about e-commerce being $6 trillion, you know, still growing low double-digit rates. It's a massive opportunity and we're still only at $140 billion. I think that every time we add more product functionalities and expand the SAM and expand the value that we're creating to our merchants, it helps from a retention perspective. It helps from a revenue perspective within our client base. I think we can be a meaningful part of, you know, wider e-commerce in the years ahead. That's part of the strategy. Integrate with more merchants, get more GMV, provide them more services and, you know, kind of have that reflected in our take rate and net take rate. Yeah. You guys have been a buyer of the stock. Obviously, you have a nice cash balance. How do you think about other uses of cash, maybe M&A? Does it make sense in the space to acquire someone else? If so, would you think about horizontal, vertical integration, like scale, like how do you think about M&A, if at all? We, I mean, we're not opposed to M&A. We think M&A can play an important part. We don't have any philosophy against it. We have not done any to date. The reason being, we have just not found the right opportunity at the right price. I think we're very disciplined in how we approach that. Whenever we would compare like an M&A opportunity relative to buying back Riskified stock at current valuations, we've said, well, you know, we think this is a better use of proceeds. When we think about M&A, we think, hey, we have a strategic relationship with over 50 publicly traded e-commerce companies. We have a very deep integration with them. They trust us. They think that our services are great. We can obviously cross-sell them more. We've cross-sold them Policy and Dispute Management and Account Secure, and we're sure there are other services that we can provide them. We just go through, you know, kind of a built by partner analysis. We have not found the right fit for that part of the business so far. Another potential play is we believe we're the most kind of scaled risk provider. Sure. There are other kind of smaller providers subscale that are having, potentially would have a harder time. We think there's a lot of synergy opportunities in that scenario as well. That's something we're looking at. Yeah. On that last note, you know, would you say that for the smaller guys, given where the capital markets are and the IPO window, is there a greater urgency? I know you guys IPO'd several years ago, and have had, you know, you had cash in the balance sheet, but I would imagine some of the smaller guys maybe don't have that type of liquidity. Do you feel a greater sense of urgency potentially for some of the smaller guys, over the next, I don't know, 12 months or so? I don't wanna, I don't know the exact timeframe for it, but there is, if you think about the past, you know, kind of eight to 12 quarters. Yeah. The upcoming quarters, whether it's four, eight, 12, are markedly different from the past and the realization around their growth rates, the exit opportunities. Sure. That would obviously potentially create opportunities for us. Got it. We've got a few minutes left. Some folks in the audience, if there are any questions, just raise your hand. I can get the microphone over to you. Go from there. For folks who are a little bit newer to like the, you know, where you sit in the ecosystem in the sector, could you share a little bit about your perspective on the competitive dynamics with like folks who maybe aren't like pure player risk providers? Thank you. Sure. When we think about the landscape, we can either think about some of these dedicated fraud solutions that are legacy providers. We can think about part of the payment platforms, whether it's Stripe, Adyen, and Worldpay that have, you know, risk solutions. You can think about modern risk solutions like us and a handful of others, and you can think about smaller startups. Legacy vendors predominantly losing market share, not winning new RFPs. You know, some of them get some renewals, but still the majority of the market. Payment stacks, Adyen, Stripe, others. We do not see them in our area of the market, and we think they have inherent limitations. If I'm a large merchant, I would run Stripe, Adyen, and Braintree, de-local or our transactions between them. I don't, as a large merchant, I don't really wanna use an orchestration platform. I wanna keep my own credit cards and vaults and everything internally. Even just based on performance, right, like the level of data that we have and that we integrate with is, you know, we did a recent analysis, three times as much data points than what a payment gateway type risk solution receives. When we talk about going very deep and being best in the world at something, that's where it really stands out. That's relative to the payment solutions. On the newer startups, I haven't seen a lot in this space. I think, you know, kind of when we started the company in 2013, 2014, there was a handful of companies that started, and some of those are kind of the other smaller players in the field right now. I would say we were probably like that first generation of newer AI solutions in this space. Hey, I don't, I wanna ask, just on, on the- Good to see you. On the alternative payment method side, we've been hearing a lot of new, you know, pay by bank and, and locals, you know, buttons or, or brand tender types come aboard. And then there's also this theme towards payment orchestration as well. At Stripe sessions, they talked about being able to use AI and surface up relevant payment types for consumers as, as they come in. I'm, I'm just curious, does that complicate the, the process for, for Riskified? Does it actually make it even more imperative for, for retailers to consider? I'm, I'm just curious how all of that impacts your thinking of, of, you know, the outlook. I think newer payment methods are really interesting for us. We talked a bit about our growth in money transfer and remittance, and a lot of that are account to account transfers. It does not have to be traditional credit card, but there is always a risk inherent that someone is not the real identity or some backend funding instrument is not gonna be there, right, when you wire something through an ACH and then four days later, oh, you know, there was insufficient funds in that account. We see that as a great growth opportunity, and really interested in leaning into that. As we think about orchestration, I think that is slightly to the side from how we view things. We integrate directly with the merchant. They tend to have their own internal logic about how they route transactions, or it could be via an orchestration platform. The value-added services component, right, around the orchestration is probably different. Again, when we talk about enterprise clients, predominantly a billion plus, but also that $50 million-$1 billion piece, they tend to like to unpack the bundles and choose kind of best of, best of breed solutions in the various components. Now, as we think about distribution for, you know, the medium tail, and the SMB tail, I think going through, whether it's the platforms, the payment facilitators, the orchestrators, that's a great strategy. It's not something candidly that we've focused on, but we would wanna get involved there by the end of the year, early next year. We've got two minutes left. I think a point of clarification that would be really good, kind of builds off attention's question. Like, where do you sit in the flow, for some of the buttons? Like whether it's a PayPal button or Apple Pay, would that volume, would you evaluate that before it gets there or do you not look at that stuff? Like, how does that, how does your business fit, with, with that stuff? The majority of merchants would send us their definitely the PayPal transactions, but also the Apple Pay. Apple Pay might be non-guaranteed in some markets. Like we would provide a non-guaranteed decision in some areas. PayPal predominantly comes with the guarantee. From a flow perspective, what we would recommend is us sitting pre-authorization. The reason being we can, you know, kind of remove what we consider blatant or bad fraud and keep the merchant, the MID, the merchant identifier clean and have a better standing with the bank. We also do a lot of data sharing with some of the participating issuing banks. We do it with Capital One, with Bank of America, with Discover, and we have more partnerships lined up. There we share enriched data with the card issuer, pre-auth. That helps the card issuer provide a higher auth rate for our merchants. Sure. That's been really successful, driving, you know, 100-200 basis points in incremental post-auth approval rates. We would probably do a full post-auth risk screening once we also get the AVS results. That's like the full technical answer about how we sit in the flow. Stuff. I guess we got one minute left. Love to hear your five-year vision for Riskified. Like five years from now, we're sitting here. What does the company look like? What are we talking about product-wise? Like where are things going? A trillion in GMV. No, I'm, we'll, we'll see. I, my CFO's here looking at me, don't give any five-year forward-looking statements on, Nothing like that. It's just, you know, kind of what's your vision of the industry five years from now? I think that we can continue to leverage. I think we have the most, an incredibly powerful AI platform that can spin up unique models that answer a lot of different questions outside of, is this transaction fraudulent or not? I think we've expanded that into the policy piece. By the way, the dispute management piece also has an interesting AI component that knows how to optimize the win rates. I think there are more services that we can provide these enterprise e-commerce merchants by leveraging the same data network that's very robust, the same ML platform that's very robust. I think by doing that, we can expand the GMV that flows through our system, and maintain good take rates there at a high scale. Perfect. Sounds good. All right. Good to see you. Good to see you.