Yuval is trying to manufacture a gotcha, so let me set the record straight: If you deploy a smart contract on Ethereum, you have FULL CONTROL over how that contract will behave. Same if you deploy your own L2 or a Prividium instance: you determine the rules of that environment completely. This is exactly why banks and institutions are comfortable building on public chains. But any real smart contract limits the ability of transacting parties to exert control over the assets inside it. That's the entire point. You set the rules upfront, enforced by code in real time — not by contractual promises that take years and millions of dollars to litigate. This is what makes blockchains a genuine upgrade over legacy financial infrastructure. Would an issuer ever want to limit their own control? Of course! Issuers do it every day. Anti-dilution protections, debt covenants, dividend waterfalls — these are all promises issuers make to investors that say "I won't do X." Today those promises are enforced by lawyers. Smart contracts can enforce them by math. So the real question every institution should ask their blockchain provider: can your platform actually enforce this logic, or does the issuer always retain root access to the asset? Canton requires issuers to retain full administrative control, which fundamentally undermines the network's ability to protect transacting parties. On Ethereum, enforcement is guaranteed by math and open-source code. Canton calls that a feature, but every investor on the other side of the trade should call it a risk.