W3F: No matter how good Polkadot’s technology is, if no one is willing to participate, it’s all in vain

This article is from a recent live broadcast of the Polkadot Ambassador Alliance Program. The person in charge, Lucy, invited two guests in charge of coordinating governance from the Web3 Foundation, Bill and Karam, to discuss the following topics:

• Web3 Foundation is not the “controller” of the ecosystem, but the “shepherd”

• No matter how good the technology is, if no one is willing to participate, it is all in vain.

• OpenGov could indeed be a little more “ government-like ”

• The essence of an ambassador is "a proactive person. Don't hesitate, just join in!

• DV allows more contributors to have a say, but they need to be kind and avoid emotional issues

• Our ultimate goal is that the Web3 Foundation and Parity are no longer the core pillars of the ecosystem

Keep reading to see them all!

Lucy : Hello everyone, welcome to the first live broadcast of the "Polkadot Ambassador Alliance Exchange"! This is a new weekly series we launched in May. If the feedback is good, it will continue to be held in the future. We hope that through this program, everyone will deepen their understanding of the core ecological institutions such as the Web3 Foundation, Parity, and Fellowship, and break the outside world's stereotype that they "work behind closed doors and issue orders." Today, we invited Bill and Karam, two guests who are deeply involved in OpenGov, to talk about governance-related topics. Let's ask Bill to introduce himself first, and then Karam.

Bill : Thank you Lucy for the invitation. My name is Bill Laboon, and I am the Director of Education and Governance Programs at the Web3 Foundation. Since 2018, I have participated in the Polkadot ecosystem in various forms. In 2019, I officially joined the Web3 Foundation. Before that, I taught computer science at the University of Pittsburgh. At that time, I gradually came into contact with blockchain and fell in love with Polkadot. Since then, I have never thought about leaving this ecosystem.

Karam : Hi, my name is Karam Alhamad. I am currently the Governance Coordinator at the Web3 Foundation, and I am responsible for OpenGov-related work with Bill. My previous background is in aid and grant management, and I have worked with the US government and the European Union to support countries in crisis. From 2018 to 2019, I began to explore how blockchain can solve the shortcomings of international development and funding systems. Since then, I quit my job, started an education company, and studied for a master's degree in blockchain governance at Yale University. I joined the Web3 Foundation at the beginning of this year and I am very happy to communicate with you.

Lucy : Great, thank you. Web3 Foundation played a guiding role in the early days of the ecosystem. We pushed the decentralization button 18 months ago. How has your role changed since then, Bill?

Bill : In the past year and a half, community coordination has increased significantly. Many things that were previously driven directly by Parity or the Foundation are now handed over to different individuals and teams in the community . My focus has also shifted from "specific execution" to "communication and coordination" - my son always jokes that my job is to talk to people in front of the computer, and now it is indeed more and more. This is exactly our role and the long-term direction of the Foundation.

Web3 Foundation has never been the "controller" of the ecosystem, but the "shepherd". Our responsibility is to coordinate all parties. Looking back to when I first joined in 2019, the team was still small, Polkadot and Kusama were not online, and many things were promoted in a centralized manner. Now that the power of the community is rising, power is being decentralized. This is a natural evolution that we have long foreseen, and the past year and a half has only accelerated this process.

Lucy : Great. Karam, your role hasn’t “changed” because you are new to this “decentralization” process and we still have a long way to go. What challenges have you encountered in your early days?

Karam : I think the ultimate goal is to establish a "self-driven" relationship between the community, OpenGov, the Foundation, and each other . To be honest, the first thing I said to Bill when I first joined was: I applied for this position because the title has "Coordinator". In a decentralized open system, this role is particularly meaningful. We are not managers. When I joined, the Foundation was gradually "stepping back", and more decision-making power and actions were being handed over to the community.

As someone who comes from a highly centralized background in a country, I find this change very exciting. I think the measure of my success is whether this ecosystem can function normally without me, without Bill, and without the foundation.

Lucy : How do you think we can attract more new people to not only participate, but actually become actors in the decentralized ecosystem?

Karam : This is a good question. As a "newcomer" who has just entered the industry (in fact, I just "graduated" from the Blockchain Academy today. I am very happy but I am still learning. There are new things every day), I think the most successful point in the ecosystem is knowledge sharing and education programs. As long as you are curious, there are always channels to learn and there are always people to ask for advice. I remember on my first day at work, I sent private messages to everyone frantically, asking technical questions, and trying to understand the technical level of OpenGov and the social level behind it - the latter is actually as important as technology. If you are curious enough, there are too many resources to explore in the ecosystem. More importantly, empower individuals and groups within the ecosystem so that they are not just "ambassadors", but also members of the DAO, becoming a true "voice of the community", allowing them to take root in their respective communities, and define "blockchain" and "Polkadot" in a way that conforms to local culture, and become "translators" between the ecosystem and the community.

Therefore, it is crucial to provide tools, data dashboards, and methodology . I have met many current ambassadors, and they showed me a lot of practical experience and self-made documentation tools at the beginning. They each focused on their respective DAOs or ecological roles, which impressed me.

Bill : I would like to add that the "social aspect" mentioned by Karam is really critical. The technology is of course great, and neither we insiders nor outsiders will deny this. Polkadot does have many highlights in technology. But I think the most important thing to attract people to join this ecosystem is the "community atmosphere" . If people don't think this is a community they are willing to join, are unwilling to build, and are unwilling to stay, then no matter how good the technology is, it will be useless.

I have always paid attention to this issue, and try my best to welcome new friends and answer everyone's questions. I often answer many technical questions on Twitter, Reddit and other places. This reminds me of my experience as a Ruby programmer in my early years. At that time, there was a saying in the Ruby community: "Matz is friendly, so we should be friendly too" (Matz is the founder of Ruby), which is one of the reasons why I like Ruby. I won't mention some programming communities by name, but newcomers are told: "Go read the documentation yourself!", "Don't bother me". But the Ruby community has always been open and friendly, and I try my best to bring this atmosphere to the Polkadot community.

The Polkadot system is indeed complex and prone to errors. There are many differences from other blockchain ecosystems, so we must work harder to build this community into a place that welcomes newcomers. After all, no matter how good the technology is, if no one is willing to participate, build, and support it, everything is empty talk.

Lucy : I totally agree. This is also the core of the Ambassador's Declaration, and it is also the concept that we strive to practice as ambassadors - being friendly does not cost anything, but it is the biggest challenge in the process of decentralization. We have a large global team that supports each other like a family, although we may quarrel occasionally.

Another problem is " seniority " (in the words of the British civil service system, "the longer you sit in the position, the more respected you are"). A similar phenomenon also exists in OpenGov - I understand that this stems from trust in "execution ability", but the hidden danger is that some proposals may be repeatedly passed not based on quality, but because the proposer is "senior", while new proposals may be ignored. How do you view the evolution of this phenomenon? How to make the ecosystem more fair?

Bill : First of all, it needs to be clarified that not all proposals by "old people" can be passed. There are also newcomers who quickly integrate with brilliant ideas and become core members (for example, JAM has introduced many people who solve problems with new perspectives, and some people who were not involved in Polkadot a year ago have now emerged). So the "buttocks occupying chairs" phenomenon you mentioned - this is the first time I have heard of this term, and it sounds very British - is indeed a natural phenomenon to some extent.

If a person works hard in the ecosystem for a long time, it is easier to win the trust and support of others. But we are also working hard to enhance the voice of newcomers: for example, one of the goals of the decentralized voice plan is to provide newcomers with a voice channel so that their ideas can be seen. We have also been trying various new methods to improve. We are very clear that governance cannot be dominated by people who have worked at Parity since 2015. This ecosystem must continue to introduce new energy and voices.

Lucy : We will discuss the "Voice of Decentralization" in depth later. I would also like to say that another challenge is that many proposals only reflect current needs, but may deviate from the overall direction of Polkadot. For example, we now have Coretime, Polkadot hub, and we also have plans such as JAM. If someone proposes a music-related or creative proposal now, it may be regarded as "unimportant", but in the absence of clear guidance, people cannot judge what is "important" and can only try it on their own. Do you think we should continue to encourage free proposals, or set clear quarterly/annual goals so that everyone can try to develop proposals around these goals?

Bill : I think OpenGov could really be a little more “government-like” – i.e., have some coordination and direction .

This has been reflected in various bounty programs and community organizations in the ecosystem. But on the other hand, the essence of OpenGov is to find direction through feedback and exploration. The process may be chaotic, but it is also the only way for democracy - debate is inevitable, but it is through debate that the community can clearly "care about what".

Of course, voters’ concerns in the past were different from those now (the “one coin, one vote” controversy is not discussed here), but it is not advisable to formulate a one-size-fits-all “Soviet-style five-year plan” - “Comrades, we will do this this year and that next year, and we will never deviate!” Reality will always change. The value of OpenGov lies in dynamically adjusting the direction through multiple feedback, similar to Ethereum’s “North Star” vision. Although it is not perfect, the direction is gradually clarified in practice.

Lucy : You mentioned the bounty program. Let me explain it to those who don't know: a bounty program is to allocate a sum of money to sub-projects managed by several administrators, who will screen proposals that meet specific directions, such as activity bounties, marketing bounties, etc. This model guides resource allocation through the professional perspective of administrators. Karam, recently many people have discussed whether the bounty program represents the future direction. Based on your recent observations, what do you think?

Karam : This actually goes back to the idea of ​​"stepping back and letting the community make decisions independently." The bounty program is one of the ways for the community to explore the future of Polkadot - which programs to support, which activities to fund, etc.

In my opinion, bounty programs and OpenGov can complement each other. Specific small and medium-sized plans are directly implemented through bounty programs (such as existing event bounties, marketing bounties, etc., and even 1-3 year special strategies can be formulated), while OpenGov is responsible for more macro explorations - its "chaos" is its value, just like an experiment. Maybe in the future someone will really propose a five-year plan, and then the community will hit it off.

From a practical point of view, we are gradually delegating decision-making power to the community . The Web3 Foundation has begun to delegate voting rights to some "decentralized voices". In many cases, we are just assisting rather than leading, helping those groups that are still in the early stages to stand up, and slowly they can vote independently and decide the future of the ecosystem. Therefore, I believe that OpenGov and the bounty system can coexist. Whether to increase or decrease the bounty should actually be decided by the community, not the Web3 Foundation. This is just my personal opinion, and we can also listen to Bill's ideas.

Bill : I basically agree with you. The Web3 Foundation does not want to control too much. Our goal is to set some broad strategic directions, but we hope to leave the details of execution to the community as much as possible. Our role is to help the community make decisions, not replace them. We just provide coordination support. The ideal state is that over time, the presence of the foundation will become less and less - of course this is a slow and non-linear process, but this is our vision.

Lucy : Before we go into the topic of DV, I would like to briefly review the Ambassador Program. The first phase of the Ambassador Program has trained 160 people, and 65 more people are about to join in the second phase. I wish them good luck, as they may not yet understand how "hardcore" this program is. The endurance of this project stems from its mechanism - it does not force time investment, does not provide salaries, but helps ambassadors accumulate reputation in the ecosystem and even gain external recognition through levels and titles. Many ambassadors take the initiative to engage in community work without asking for anything in return, which is exactly what we want to see, but they are eager to participate in meaningful things. Karam, we briefly talked about this topic more than a month ago, and I would like to hear your and Bill's opinions: How do you think ambassadors can help the foundation promote decentralization, optimize OpenGov, or consolidate the community framework on a daily or long-term basis?

Bill : I think the answer is already written in the word "ambassador" itself - it means representing the image of Polkadot and conveying our ideas to the outside world. Just like I am an American living in Switzerland now, in a sense I am the "unofficial representative" of the United States here. Others will understand what Americans are like through me, although this idea is a bit scary. I think in the Polkadot ecosystem, whether it is an "official ambassador" or not, everyone can be a representative of this ecosystem. This awareness is very important. For example, when you interact with others, they know Polkadot through you.

Also, I don’t really want to make a specific task list of “you should do A, you should do B”, because many times, ambassadors know better what is happening on the front line and what needs to be improved than those of us sitting in ivory towers.

The only advice I want to emphasize is: "Take action!" - Report problems as soon as you see them, whether they are technical bugs, product experience, or governance processes. Don't be afraid to make critical comments, but also remember that you are always part of Polkadot, and your words and actions affect other people's views on the entire ecosystem. Maybe it sounds a little unfair, for example, that others are biased against the entire United States because of me, but this is the reality. If you choose to be a member of the Polkadot community, please realize that you represent a group that is larger than yourself.

Lucy : That’s great! Karam, do you have anything to add?

Karam : I completely agree with Bill. The most fascinating (and challenging) thing about decentralization is that anyone can rise, sometimes even the most unexpected person. The charm of Polkadot also lies in its multiple entrances - you can find a suitable position according to your interests. If you are concerned about governance, you can join DAOs in the ecosystem such as Chaos Dao and KusDAO; in addition, there is a very good trend now, that is, more and more "localized DAOs" are emerging, such as DAOs in Latin America, DAOs in Eastern Europe, DAOs in the Middle East and Africa, etc. If you are a local, just join directly, they are in great need of voice and creativity! The essence of an ambassador is an "initiator" - the ecosystem needs more voices and creativity, don't hesitate, join boldly.

Lucy : That's great. The local DAO you mentioned is very important. The Phragmèn Project Fund of the first ambassador program has funded the Polkadot Latin American and Brazilian communities, as well as the joint communities in Eastern Europe and Oceania, and probably Italy, which is very exciting. We are also developing Spanish, Chinese and Italian platforms simultaneously. I am very grateful for these small and beautiful communities coming together. Next, let's talk about DV. Bill, please briefly explain what DV is.

Bill : DV is the abbreviation of "Decentralized Voices". Simply put, the Web3 Foundation will not vote on many referendas, especially treasury proposals, but will delegate the voting rights of DOT tokens held to different DAOs in the ecosystem in proportion. Currently, 6 DAOs have been delegated (the highest number in history was 20).

This serves two purposes:

First, it allows truly active and contributing community organizations to have more "voice";

The second is to allow these DAOs to accumulate recognition through decision-making - especially for newcomers to the ecosystem, this is an opportunity to build a reputation.

Lucy : Thank you, Bill. The current fourth phase attempts to introduce more DAOs with lower activity and shorter establishment time in the ecosystem, which is more diverse than the previous three phases. Then Leemo asked a common question: What are the future plans for DV? Will it be adjusted according to the participation of OpenGov? Here is a brief background: When DV was first established, it was because there was a DOT "whale" in the ecosystem, and his vote alone could influence most proposals, but now this "whale" no longer participates in voting. The current situation is a bit the opposite: DV voting is very active, which may scare off ordinary users. What do you think?

Bill : First of all, we need to clarify that the original intention of establishing DV was not to "check and balance" a certain individual or force, but the dual goal mentioned earlier. However, we must admit that the current voting share of DV is completely different from when it was first launched a year ago, and the overall model of OpenGov has also changed.

We have adjusted the DV mechanism: for example, we added Treasurer Track and Wish for Change Track for DV voting; and changed the number of DVs and the delegation ratio.

So, the answer to the question “Will DV change in the future?” is: it is already changing . And I expect it will continue to evolve in the future. Specifically, I have asked Karam to sort out the historical data of DV, and I am evaluating the performance of the current fourth period and considering possible adjustments in the future.

However, I don’t want to say what specific changes there will be yet. I hope to collect community feedback first. Now that the fourth phase has just been established for about a month, we plan to analyze the data and solicit opinions as soon as possible. Interestingly, different people’s evaluations of DV are often opposite: someone says "what everyone thinks of DV", while another person says "no one thinks so." This shows that there is an information cocoon within the community. We need to objectively analyze the advantages and disadvantages of DV and think about how to optimize it. What is certain is that DV will continue to iterate, but it will not be completely cancelled. There was a forum discussing "whether DV is still necessary." We believe that its core value is still there, but the parameters may be adjusted, such as:

• Entrusted amount

• Number of DVs

• Duration of each period

• Does the selection mechanism need to be optimized?

These are all subject to change, and I expect to see some new adjustments in the next few issues of DV.

Lucy : Thanks for the clarification, Bill. Karam, this is something you deal with every day, do you have anything to add?

Karam : Bill has said it very comprehensively. I personally think that in the future, DV should not only focus on "voting rights delegation", but also on "culture creation" - the key to becoming a DV should not be "loud voice" (this was indeed the case in the past), but should be a real concern and belief in the ecosystem, not just because they have funds and fame. We are studying the data of the first few DVs, but I think the future development of DV will depend entirely on community feedback, which will be a very interesting discussion.

Lucy : I totally agree. Some people think that the fourth DV may be more inclined to "follow the crowd" and dare not oppose the mainstream opinion because it is newer and less active. Here I would like to appeal: please be open and kind to all DVs. An important value of DV is that the reason for voting must be made public - if someone votes against (or in favor of) your proposal without explaining the reason, it will be difficult for you to improve the proposal or judge the direction, just like Bart in "The Simpsons" keeps pressing the buzzer but no one responds, and he can only repeat the same mistake.

Bill : Lack of feedback is indeed a big problem. The third significance of our establishment of DV is to encourage people to actively provide feedback by giving DOT rewards. As someone who pays attention to governance every day (including weekends), I am often confused by certain votes. I won’t name names or say which proposals, but sometimes when I see an anonymous account holding a large amount of KSM or DOT without leaving any feedback, I will wonder: Why vote like this? Is it a mistake? Or did I miss something?

There are two main problems:

• Most people lack the motivation to provide feedback (it’s all based on self-consciousness or the desire to express)

• Once feedback is given, it often leads to lengthy discussions, which are time-consuming and labor-intensive, and many people do not have the time to participate.

From the perspective of game theory or utilitarianism, it is reasonable for them to choose to remain silent. But from an ecological perspective, we need this feedback too much. You say that we should rely on incentive mechanisms to guide everyone's feedback, but it will also bring new problems. For example, many votes are completed instantly after the referendum goes online, and many are "random votes." Even with AI analysis, it is difficult to distinguish the authenticity of the reasons for voting. So this problem is really tricky. If you have good ideas, please feel free to give feedback through [email protected] . Whether it is about DV or OpenGov governance, we are willing to listen to suggestions. Although we cannot directly modify the parameters of OpenGov, we are very happy to listen to everyone's suggestions.

Lucy : Thank you very much. I personally often want to give reasons for voting, but I am afraid of causing controversy and repeated arguments. Sometimes when you write something and it is forwarded on Twitter, it will explode. So in the final analysis, it still comes back to the two words "maintain goodwill".

Karam : To add to Bill's point about "maintaining goodwill" - as someone who receives a lot of private messages every day, I would like to say that the proposer should also be kind to DV . Looking at the feedback from DV in this issue and previous issues, their attitude has actually been very consistent. But it is easy for people to forget that most of these DAO members are volunteers, not full-time employees. Recently, some people have questioned "why a certain DAO member does not post feedback", but imagine a DAO with more than 100 members. It is unrealistic to require everyone to write feedback on platforms such as Polkassembly and Subsquare. We encourage DV to share their reasons on public channels (Twitter, Telegram, Discord), but we also need to understand their limitations and treat each other with kindness.

Lucy : I totally agree. Although I have never been a DV, I can understand their situation - this is like any political field, especially a new and diverse ecosystem like Polkadot. There has never been a similar model in the world. Leemo mentioned that "if you vote against, the proposer may come to ask you why, but it does not mean that you will change your vote", which also goes back to the importance of feedback. If there is more feedback, plus a little humility, and accepting that "it is impossible for everyone to agree with your ideas", perhaps you can find a balance. For example, when I participated in the Fellowship, it was very positive overall, but you never know the result before voting. If you feel good about yourself but no one points out the problem, you will keep repeating the same practice. So I wonder, can the community set some cultural guidelines together? We don't seem to have any really clear consensus or value standards right now.

Bill : In fact, I think it would be meaningful for the community to jointly develop a set of values ​​and write them into the chain through a "wish for change" referendum. Leemo mentioned the emotional issue in public discussions in the chat just now - this is indeed a pain point. When you apply for funds from the treasury, you are essentially asking for trust and resources, not "deserving it". In particular, treasury proposals usually issue tokens in advance (unlike the milestone mechanism of the bounty program), and applicants should have a "request" mentality rather than taking it for granted. This goes back to the importance of shared values ​​- we need to establish a consensus that "coming to the negotiating table is to ask for trust ." Treasury funds are limited, and approving one proposal means rejecting another. There will inevitably be winners and losers in decision-making, but there is no need to turn it into a "war". Instead, we should discuss together how to move the Polkadot network forward. This is our common goal.

Lucy : This is very important. I often hear people say "It's only $100,000, give it to them", and I find it incredible. That's $100,000! - In reality, you can't just go to an investor or a bank and ask for $100,000 for free. Although the treasury proposal requires deliverables, it is essentially a grant, not a loan, and must be treated with caution. Karam, do you have anything to add? If not, I would like to ask you two a question in the last nine minutes: In the next two to three years, if Polkadot decentralization proceeds as planned, what parts of your respective jobs will no longer be required of you?

Bill : First of all, I hope that Karam will do a great job in governance, but ideally, the DV mechanism can gradually "retire" - although it is unlikely in the next one or two years, if we can develop a more mature governance system, perhaps DV will no longer be necessary. In addition, we also hope that the "support" work that our team is responsible for can be "unemployed". In the early days, Polkadot's support email was actually my personal email. At that time, everyone encountered various problems using the Polkadot JS application, and even basic operations were difficult. But now with wallets such as Nova and Talisman, the user experience has been greatly improved, and few people have sent me private messages to ask operational questions. Similarly, projects such as the "Decentralized Node Plan" will also exit the stage of history in the future as the network becomes sufficiently decentralized.

In fact, the Web3 Foundation and Parity have been promoting decentralization : social media operations, event organization, anti-fraud and other tasks that were previously handled by the foundation have now been handed over to the community. Our ultimate goal is that one day in the future, the Web3 Foundation and Parity will no longer be the core pillars of the ecosystem, but a completely community-autonomous and self-driven network. This may not happen soon, but we are gradually removing the "training wheels" to allow the ecosystem to truly operate independently.

Lucy : Yeah, that last analogy is great. Karam, how do you plan to take your current job to the extreme and then move on to solving the next decentralization problem? Or, how do you see your role evolving?

Karam : As I said at the beginning, I think one of the criteria for whether I am successful is that in the future this role does not need to exist at all. For example, now I need to guide representatives, organize conference calls, and handle dozens of private messages every day... None of this should exist in the long run. If we are successful, then the entire "machine" should be able to run itself, without someone constantly debugging it.

As Leemo mentioned, the entire governance culture should be internalized, self-driven, and without the need for an intermediate coordinator. If all goes well, I might turn to long-term research, thinking about the form of democracy in the post-voting era, studying how communities can achieve autonomy without exhausting their vitality, and exploring how to apply the OpenGov model to countries or systems that are experiencing a burnout crisis. These attempts will be based on the experience gained from the Polkadot project. Ideally, my presence will become "invisible" - not disappearing, but the entire system will no longer need a similar coordination support architecture.

Lucy ：This is really a reminder that the goal is not just to decentralize Polkadot, but to be part of the bigger picture of global development, which is critical. We only have three minutes left, and Simon's question is essentially the core of today's discussion - the Ambassador Program has multi-disciplinary professionals around the world, how do you think they align with the goals of the Web3 Foundation and make major contributions? Although we have already discussed it, can Bill summarize it in one or two sentences?

Bill : Just use your expertise in a specific area - just go for it, don't hesitate. Remember, the brave get the job done. Be brave and try different things. It's hard for me to specify what each ambassador should do, and that's by design - I'm not a puppeteer . But if you have an idea, a project you want to move forward, or you don't know how to get started, please feel free to contact me or Karam. We're all happy to help.

Lucy : That's great, and that's exactly what we want to create through the Ambassador Fellowship program - for everyone to show their true self and embrace their skills and passions. I was going to ask how the Nakamoto Coefficient is calculated, but there are only two minutes left.

Bill : I can explain it quickly. It measures the "number of entities that need to be coordinated to undermine the stability of the system." For example, in Bitcoin, if two or three entities together can control more than 50% of the computing power, then this coefficient is 2 or 3. On Polkadot, the specific numbers are more complicated because the entities behind many validators are not public. According to NakaFlow statistics, Polkadot's Nakamoto coefficient is 174, but this does not necessarily include all organizations that control multiple verification nodes behind the scenes. But even in this case, our data is still very good compared to other chains. Karam has also done some research before, and the data shows that Polkadot is better than most projects in this regard.

Lucy : Great, Karam, once you finish your research, you can share it on the Ambassador platform so that everyone can learn from it. Last question, describe the anthropomorphic qualities of Polkadot in one word, and why? Bill goes first.

Bill : Nerd, I love this word.

Lucy : Haha, this one needs no explanation, it’s very vivid! Karam, how about you?

Karam : unstoppable.

Lucy : Unstoppable, great! Thank you both so much, I really enjoyed this conversation today, and I hope you did too. I think this interview is also very valuable for the entire Polkadot community. I look forward to meeting again in the next few months - there will definitely be new changes in the Polkadot ecosystem, and we will have new topics - this is exactly what we like about the Polkadot ecosystem! Thank you!