Let's wait until 5 past, I think, or at least 4 past to make sure that we hit the most important question early on in the conversation.
 For sure. Yeah, the ping usually takes a couple of seconds. Oh, actually it looks like it just went out. There we go.
 Thank you, Keenan.
 No problem.
 Alright, for folks who are rolling in, just give it a couple more minutes. Our Discord ping just went out, so we will kick off in about one minute.
 Thank you all for joining.
 I'm going to post a link to the questions document. If people have questions, they can post them in there.
 Just one second. And the chat.
 Great. We will try our best to keep up. I mean, I know some new questions are coming in, but we've got a lot that have a bunch of upvotes, so we'll generally prioritize those.
 But before we jump in to all the AMA, I know there's a number of questions specifically around the council.
 Alright, you want to kick us off? Yeah, I definitely wanted to give a couple of remarks also because some people might be more active than others on the channel, and I wanted to kind of like pull the summary where we are right now.
 So for the ones that I think if you're here, you're probably paying enough attention to the project and where we are and the proposal and the things that we're trying to accomplish with the proposal.
 What we are with that process is that currently we had an original HIP 149 draft. The draft has been already amended in several ways from the Nova team to add more information around things like NDA terms for the council and other aspects of it.
 And most importantly, there has been a proposal to augment, to integrate more points by some of the community members that have been the most active, the one that posted this JMF on behalf of course of a cohort of other community members.
 So let's take a close look at that, at those integration with the purpose of trying within the boundaries of what we can do, we'll talk about that in a second, of integrating as much as we can into the HIP to get to a joint combined process.
 I also wanted to say that just this morning I posted an FAQ document that we prepared internally, and I think it's very important because I think, let me explain, hopefully in much more clear terms, the fact that we are vouching transparency and the fact that we are here talking and spending our time together to resource the network in this way with the community.
 And as I mentioned in the previous AMA, this is one of the options that we decided to look at when we were going after this.
 However, that transparency and openness and honesty cannot go beyond what is unfortunately the legally binding things that a private entity has. There is corporate laws, there is no disclosure that they are shared with Nova commercial agreements, and that also takes a big part of the way of the things that we can and we can't, which is very different sometimes than what we want for what it's worth.
 I just want to say, I just want to acknowledge that that's a tension. There is no reason to hide the tension, it's a real tension, but it's also, I want to say that this is the opportunity for us to put on our conciliatory hat as much as possible and assume that there is best intent on all sides.
 One thing that I wanted to say that I would love to hear more, and I see some of this in the audience here, is I would love to hear a lot more also from deployers.
 I think that token holders are an important part of the community, but one thing that we don't want to do is to try to engineer some sort of engineering results that are only favorable for token holders.
 And I think that we need to act, we collectively as a community, the council that we're trying to establish, Nova needs to act on behalf of the entire network, which means driving also value to the people that build it, which is deployers.
 And I know that some of these deployers are more vocal than others. I see them in the audience, sometimes I see them in the discourse. I also know there's a lot of deployers that they are not in this conversation.
 Maybe because they are scared by the complexity, they also scare the time consumption that this conversation has.
 I just want to point that out because I feel like the last thing I want is that we are essentially four people talking for eight hours a day in that channel, while we are convinced to, we are convinced ourselves to speaking on behalf of the entire community.
 That's just not true. And I know that for a fact because I know the data and I see who's making the network, who are the deployers that are doing this network. They are not all represented in the conversation so far.
 I would love to see more of that. So if you're one of those, please speak up more. If you know others that they are not in Discord, but they are, I am personally reaching out to the deployers to be part of the conversation more.
 And this can be a four people conversation eight hours a day. Then I don't think that's the way this was intended to be. I understand the delegation and proxy and all that stuff that is in place. Nobody's going to take away that.
 But also, I also want to be very careful because it's very easy to go into a me versus us and that line being blended. So with that, let's get into the question in the spirit of transparency of going with the hardest one, first and foremost.
 So maybe Scott, if you can start reading them, I would love to interact with that.
 Yeah, absolutely. Mario, thank you for the perspective on that. And just echoing again, we've got some really fantastic very large scale to players that are out there. We want to make sure your voice is heard.
 We want to engage with you, whether that is one to one reach out to the team or, you know, to join the conversation directly and channel here in Discord.
 All right. That said, number of questions that came in to our AMA forum appreciate everybody that submitted. So we're going to start right off with the one that has the most upvotes and try to work our way through as such.
 So first one is what happened to the funds from the sale of Helium Mobile? Surely those funds should be used for network growth as the network funded Helium Mobile in the first place.
 Okay. So I think I've said the overarching high level first, but I'm going to go into more and more details today.
 Again, please respect the fact that while we can stake the facts in for obvious legal reason, we can now get into the details of why some of those facts.
 So I want to make sure that you understand there is a clear differentiation within these two territories. I will not do at the service. I will do actually something illegal if I go beyond that, if I pierce that veil.
 So it is exactly what we said. The Helium Mobile was created to validate the network, and it was the first carrier to run on the Helium network, the mobile side of the network.
 And to be perfectly clear, that worked. Like the work that the team did and a lot of that team, unfortunately, because of the way of the pivoting and the adjustment that we need to make is not with a company at the moment, they did an amazing job in creating that from the ground up.
 It's extremely hard to start an MVNO. It's extremely hard to create a platform to run an MVNO. I'm really happy to get into arguments about when someone here is like, it's not that hard. It's actually is for my compliance, for my product perspective, for legal and tax reasons.
 There's all sorts of complication. It was very hard. And the team that made that zero to one should be commended for their work. And it worked.
 When we started in Miami, we started to see the network growing. Sure, we, we have boosted access and a lot of things that we had to counter that some of the POC gaming back then, but the purpose of the Helium Mobile being created worked and it worked great.
 And because of that, we were able to grow the network to a point that it was at least interesting enough for other carriers to take a look.
 And I will, I'm saying this not to try to cover some sort of conspiracy theories, but that's the truth. Helium Mobile created demand on the network. The network grew to do, I think, at that point where we signed the first testing agreement, one of the carriers.
 I think we had 30,000 access point, 30,000 access points. Because of that, we were able to, we were able to create the carrier offload program. So, but the reality of it is that the economics are running a consumer business is they are actually very, very complicated and very difficult to sustain long term.
 And this includes a variety of things. For example, we had specific costs with our roaming partner that were particularly high. We tried in several occasions to change that. We didn't, we were not successful in changing that, for example.
 So there is cost to the roaming partner. And by the way, while we were, I stand behind the fact that in some geography, for example, we posted some of those data in New York, we were doing really well in terms of offload. When you look at this from a national standpoint,
 unfortunately, still the majority of the traffic, it was still on the roaming partner network, which incurred those costs. Know why you're trying to do the best in trying to project that coverage and try to shape that offload coverage to help with those economics.
 The reality is that the majority of that of the subscribers base was still on T-Mobile with a, with a, with a, with a cost that roaming partnership has. Let me also say something else, customer acquisition cost.
 MVNO is an extremely competitive marketplace. We started also starting from a crypto value proposition because the crypto market is in a different space when this launched. And then that was pivoted is a little more of a user friendly, less crypto, crypto friendly, still baked by crypto in the form of the mapping, for example.
 So unfortunately, when the crypto tide, the crypto wave changed course, and remember, I'm not a crypto guy, so I'm not here to tell you and T leaves a white technical analysis, Bitcoin didn't hold the floor, just changed.
 When that changed, that automatically changed the contribution margins of those prime. For the ones that they have that type of understanding, that means that you're not sustainable at that point.
 So we tried a premium program that was the free plan. And I think helped us tremendously and kudos to the team that was able to really create an acquisition, even we should know discount that even when things are free, it doesn't mean as easy to get or easy to convince people that worked, but the conversion was very slow.
 It was no small, I mean, it was small, meaning was slow. So when you put all these things together, it felt that as why we could have continued to operate the day in Vienna, you just it seemed that a lot of effort and a lot of effort, a lot of a lot of cost and a lot of that contribution margin would affect actually even more negatively, negatively the way the network needed to grow and the way this project needed to sustain.
 So, when it comes to the sale, first of all, the sale of the Helium Mobile did not include the free, the free subscriber, which you can make without again disclosing you might imagine that how bigger of the population percentage of the population that was of the subscriber base.
 It did not include that as a matter of fact, as you all of you notice, the free plan was actually terminated prior to the announcement of the sale. So, when the speculation around this, the sale per se, that there also let me get into it like the proceeds that came from the sale were definitely not enough to, to, to resource the network growth in the, in the terms of like years that we are, they were discussing here.
 Also, there are, there are liabilities with some of our agreement with partners like roaming partners that were, that were cancelled because of that, because of their sale, which again was, if that would not happen would have negatively impact the ability to that of the entire project to stay and to be business.
 So, hopefully this is transparent enough, but I just want to really be very direct about the fact that a, that actually, this is just business, and whoever has a business mentality have seen this, you try something conditions change, and it actually worked at the beginning to, to actually jumpstart the offload network.
 So, let me just say that at the end of the day, our real opportunity is still the network, even within the Helium Mobile MVNO when we were publishing those 25% offload data in New York was to show what is the impact of the network and the consumer brand.
 It would have taken probably 15 years to get to a point where that, that economy on a national scale would be big enough on the, I mean, you can go read the MVNO from Spectrum, MVNO from Xfinity Mobile, I can, I can host if you go on AMA or how MVNO make it.
 It's, it's a multi multi-year commitment and that cost and that burden they are in the red for several, several years in order, and we decided that that was not the case. There was no word to because it would have an existential threat on a project that which is still on the product market fit.
 We was still on a product market fit search. So, that's what I say, I stand what I said and what we said that when Andrew Yang and the Noble team wanted to decided to join forces, it was the right choice because they are fully focused on their long term vision.
 We want to be a consumer brand and we want to have multiple brands like Andrew said, and it really aligns better with someone that is long term aligned with that type of grind. It is a grind. It's a grind of mother walk, by the way.
 I mean, we can talk about grinding the network side if you want, but it's made much much more sense. So, I hope that that address that question in the within that all the boundaries then I can possibly hold myself to it.
 So to them. So let's, let's move into the next one.
 All right, sounds good. Mario, thank you for that. Um, the next question here, which Mario you are dealing with as much of this as you can so I'm happy to also jump in on this one.
 The proposal suggests a Community Advisory Council. And the question specifically does IoT get a seat at the table.
 You know, for that one again just mostly trying to get my a little bit of break on this since I think we're kind of aligned on how we look at this. There's no seat specifically reserved for either side of the network, whether that's IoT or mobile.
 These are open seats for the entire community. Five community seats selected by the veHNT vote to an open nomination process and IoT holders with the veHNT have a vote in that same process so IoT is not excluded by any means.
 Nothing stops an IoT deployer participant from nominating themselves, but there is no explicitly carved out IoT chair guaranteed and that's how we look at this it's for the entire community's participation there's not any explicit rights to one side of the network or another.
 So I think that kind of covers it now unless Mario you have anything else to add? No, it's literally that there is no carve out for specific part of the network. I mean, if there is strong voices that and they feel they have the ability to, you know, to be voted in.
 I mean, again, as we said, there is a community member, community-led vote so we will know there is no differentiation between the two. It is clear, of course, let me also be very clear that a lot of the interests right now, a lot of the hot topics are around the mobile part of the network.
 However, the IoT network is there, there is some discussions within the HIP about being essentially a data only network so yes, please go ahead and make yourself available for that if that's what suits what you think is needed.
 Wonderful. Next question. Ventures are this one came in I think just this morning. Ventures are made or broken by their public-facing image and how well they can simplify its mission statement for the layman. What are some specific ways that the Nova team is working to enhance its public-facing image to better portray its use case for the non-technical masses?
 My two cents before Mario comes in, I hope that the community can truly appreciate with the new CEO at the helm here that there is, you know, a change in tone, transparency, availability. I want to personally give my kudos to Mario and how much he has really been available in Discord and on these calls.
 So hopefully the community can see that we are kind of changing that tone, changing the availability and really what that image looks like is represented right here with Mario as our new CEO. But Mario, I want to make sure you have a chance to talk a little bit more around kind of mission statement and what we're doing to kind of change how we talk to the non-technical masses as well.
 Yeah, I think we need to own this. I mean, and I wouldn't do, I would do a disservice to everybody here if I wouldn't. Like, look, it is true that we kind of did ourself a disservice over the years because we were doing a lot of different things.
 You know, look at the, you know, back then with the mobile and IoT tokens at the same time, we were also doing the MVNO at the same time we started the Helium offload program. So I do think that I hope that is clear to everybody that we're spending a phenomenal amount of time in right now collectively to work together with community to get to agreement to, you know, again, acknowledging the tension that it is to come out with something that is agreed upon.
 That is something that is agreeable to move forward. Once that settles, even I don't even see, I don't think we need to wait until that settles necessarily. But I mean, definitely there will be a lot of brain space, a little more of brain space to come back to that narrative and come back to those use cases.
 More, more left curve, more left curve. Yes, absolutely. We do need more left curve within the realm of what is possible to say. Like, I don't want to have any images of moonshots and things like that. But all I'm saying is I think we need to collectively to do that.
 There is an internal discourse on how we do that better. And there is already several working groups internally that they are starting to create content in that direction, both in different type of content platform.
 But I also want to say that when everybody seems to be so focused on the concept of trust and honesty, well, left curve is good, but also we are gaining an incredible amount of trust in the actual vertical that we want to win in.
 And I know that is not, you said it's not enough, but I don't think that that shouldn't be overseen. What I'm saying is that we actually worked a lot hard in the vertical that we're trying to be successful to gain that credibility.
 When I talked about contractual leverage, like in the in the discourse for offload and things like that, all of that comes from the credibility that we're building in the space. Now, point taken, we need more narrative, a little more user friendly narrative, a little more easier to understand the narrative, which
 undoubtedly, it's much easier now than it was a few months ago, if nothing else, because we're doing less. But it's no more than that. It's about focus. As someone better than me said, two priorities are too much or one too many.
 So we have one priority now, and the priority is to grow the network and to grow the data on the network, to grow the amount of carriers there on the network. So yes, it is easier. We're working on it and we will continue to.
 I also want to say that we will have some element of that shift presented to you quickly in pretty soon. I think right now there is an incredible amount of work and focus on actually having the narrative about this proposal to be quite fair, to be correctly represented out there.
 And that's also part of why there is taking longer time. That's also part of the reason why there is a push to try to get to that point of stability is because the last thing we want is to stay three months here among four people discussing just a few bullet points on a document.
 I'm not saying it's not important. I'm just saying I would not want to spend 30% of our efforts internally on three months to get two bullet points. So let's try to move.
 Great. Thanks, Mario. Moving along to the next question.
 Ah, this is a certainly a tricky one. What is the purpose of HNT in your new strategy? What incentive do people have to hold the token given the proposed inflation schedule?
 Again, just a reminder, folks, we are not investment advisors. We are here to build a highly, highly useful network. We can talk about what the token does do and its purpose within the network.
 But, you know, again, Mario slippery slope on this one so we can talk mostly around kind of the functions here.
 Yeah. Again, also, we shouldn't assume that people have a good, you know, perfect understanding also because we're changing that understanding and we are modifying it. So it's good.
 All I have to say that this is a good question to have and a good reminder for everybody. HNT's job is in the network is primarily what I would say a functional job. It's not speculative. At least that shouldn't be the purpose of what Nova does and speak in those terms.
 So for us, for the network, HNT is the unit that is required to pay for data in order for serving carry offload and every gigabyte of that of that data should correspond to a unit of HNT to be burned, whatever unit that is, of course.
 It's also so one is for the burning mechanism. The second one is that is how deployers get rewarded for carrying real traffic. And also, it can be locked as a veHNT, which is the main vehicle to participate in the governance of the of the community.
 So these are the three. These are the three major function. So the burn function, the reward function and the staking function for voting. I can't tell you what you do with your token. I just know what we're going to do. But here's what you can consider.
 You know, there are emissions, they're bounded and they are on chain. There is a burn from real usage, which is also on chain. And what matters over time, in my view, is how the actual usage create, you know, grows and how we can shape that actual usage to grow as quickly as we can within the boundaries of what that within the boundaries of what is the telco cycle.
 And that's why when you see the proposal going a span of three years, it's not because we want to get lazy and just kick the can down the road. It's because it literally took about 22 months to close 22 months to close Movistar, about 12 to close to close the second carrier due to offloading in Mexico.
 So there's a real telco sell cycle. And so we can do we can tell you what to do with your token. But please watch how much of that is actually is actually being published and how is getting is getting communicated, which again is one thing that we are collectively working to always better over time.
 Great. Thank you. I think for folks to, you know, I want to make sure people are also zooming out to again. I know the question was about the token. But if you're talking in terms of the network's usefulness, if you're talking about kind of where we're going, overall direction and vision, think about the fact of what helium is doing is supporting what is probably the most reliable trend in the world right now, the idea of total mobile data consumption going up continuously, and that 80% of that data lives indoors.
 So as we talk a lot about this shift of capex times coming down, and what helium is enabling and supporting for, you know, with offload. As telcos are trying to bring their capex down, we are really sitting right at the intersection of where this industry is going right now. I think it's very exciting. I am, you know, I want to make sure people get to see the big picture.
 But again, we are not speculating on anything with respect to price. So moving along with the questions. Next one is, is it possible to use the work Nova has done around QoS quality of service and network intelligence to pay a premium off the locations at a higher per dollar gigabyte rate?
 The answer is yes, of course. And right now, it's not the way those offload agreements are structured just yet. As you let me also try to say differently that helium, the reason why helium is able to provide the quality of service metrics is because Nova has created a hotspot and is owning the firmware, the runs of the hotspot.
 And so essentially, we are in control over is that firmware looks like so we can make those changes. So, which means that all the other vendors, they are slowly getting there, I would say they're all getting there eventually.
 But they're slowly getting there, which also means that right now, while those agreements are coming into place and are getting more, they're getting stickier, what I would say like a stickier element to the network is not right now is, is not something that we will see like a premium on top of the offload rate.
 My thesis is that it will be. I'd be very clear with this. My thesis is that the QoS part is exactly the leverage that will give us, together with tonnage, together with tonnage of penetration of the two levers to access contractual leverage, and which means higher offload rates.
 So, while we might have to answer the question, yes, are we there yet just yet especially in the US market, not quite. In other markets we might be closer to that already, I do think that if the catalyst play out the way I presented them last time in the industry with more Wi-Fi offload push to happen, then at that point we'll be able to unlock things like that,
 which will include our QoS as a way to get access to higher rates.
 Yeah, just to add to that, I think there is a there's definitely a the current QoS metrics that we do use is actually being used by carriers and it makes it it makes it sticky for them right they see the QoS metrics they can figure out whether to reject users or hotspots depending on the quality of service that they see.
 And easier to select and stay with.
 So I do think it's I do think it's helping in in including in the long term and like negotiating tactics and leverage with those carriers as Mario said.
 And it means it means that you can get to those places I think premium offload locations are sort of a separate construct that will be worked on and I think we'll get to pretty quickly here to get like a different reward tiering system in place around around different location tiers.
 Yeah.
 There is a question regarding Brownfield versus Greenfield. So the right now that we get we get our metrics from Greenfield with Brownfield there is some potential to infer metrics from that but really the work that I would say Joey Padden and the team is doing with the
 industries to enable OEM to support those metrics.
 And the push is coming from the carriers of course those are the ones that are demanding the metrics to be to be implemented. So I for what is worth I think that is not about the secret sauce is not about implementing the metrics.
 The secret sauce is how do you enable the carriers to make decisions based on the metrics. That's where that's where the competitive edge stands.
 So yes right now Greenfield is helping Nova a little better when it comes to QoS discussion. Of course it's countered by the fact that Brownfield usually historically Brownfield brings tiers that are more interesting to especially to MNOs in the US when it comes to rates and things of that sort.
 Just because usually existing enterprise Wi Fi means there is a shopping mall and not all the time but it means there is a different type of venue tier.
 Great thanks for jumping in on that chat question there Mario moving right along with the other AMA questions and obviously we will keep an eye on chat and Keenan make sure you're kind of ping us if there's something we want to make sure we address so thank you all for all the coordination we got a lot to cover here.
 The next question for a while the protocol burned HNT at 50 cents per gigabyte while carriers paid approximately 10 cents per gigabyte effectively a 40 cent per gigabyte subsidy.
 Why wasn't this disclosed earlier? Honest team reflection wouldn't matter here.
 I believe we did disclose this in a block workers report but Mario do you want to jump in on this one?
 Yeah let me let me let me take this and I do want to offer an honest reflection already did in other forums but my job is to repeat the same thing is as many forums as possible so don't take this as like I'm annoyed by it I'm actually saying
 I'm very happy to repeat this in many many forums so
 yes we could have been clear about this before and yes I hope that the ability to talk together in forums like this AMA and the Discord signal that there is definitely a different way for us to interact with community.
 Now on the specific issue actually and I don't want to cover that coms the father could have been like be louder in that way but it was actually was mentioned several times.
 And what I mean is like, first of all there is people that attended mobile working groups, and where you know myself Mark Phillips and Boris, and we're having a lot of time discussion about, about, about this, about the father the carrier, the carrier rated was that was different than what the protocol rate was.
 And also if you actually looking with block works that quarterly report that for helium that was published back in April. There is a section called network pricing stability, which addresses exactly that.
 And it's also inside the income statement notables for example so I'm not trying to say that they were all that say we did that and was enough. Yeah, I think yes, yes, it couldn't be communicated better.
 Being more open. I do think though that the, the, I don't want to discount the father while the communication still there. That actually was the right thing to do at that time.
 Because that actually helped having a protocol revenue which is slightly different than, than it is different those like that we say different than the carrier that would actually help the network grow, and he helped some of those deployers to recoup without again I'm
 not getting into specific in ROI discussion but they recoup their investment faster in that way. And that's how they network, this could actually be a little more sustainable long term so all I'm saying is that this is actually not that different
 from any other business that you've seen before in which you start with something in a certain way and then, and then you and then you adjust that if 143 was created because there is a direct result.
 If 143 was like April last year was created as a direct result of that conversation in the mobile working group. So, anyway, I don't want to shy away from the fact that it could have been said differently could have been communicated better.
 Also, let me say this is exactly why we're having also this proposal, and by the way, I still think that there is there isn't, there isn't a lot of complexity behind us, those carrier contracts.
 We can make it complex like you say, by obfuscating the problem because just hiding behind the complexity but there is a lot of complexity in the way the rates are created in the caps there in those contracts, and the way that that those contracts land and expand
 the rates go all the way from zero in some cases all the way to 50 cents in others. And so, even what we have today is closer to that. It's much closer to the best very hard to get it is to ride in that way.
 And by the way, I'll give you some of those cases in some of the carriers. There were some specific caps on initial contracts because, unfortunately, and I'm not saying the sarcastic way please don't take it that way but when I see in Discord people say
 the higher rate, that's just not how it works. I would say, I hope you can see what I'm saying like you can just show up at a carrier headquarters like I have a network 10,000 access point, I know in the valuable location only 40 cents, that's not how it works.
 You get in there, you barely get an answer on a phone first you barely get a meeting and then step by step you get a testing and then you have a contract this small, and then the contract becomes a little bigger.
 I think our current contract is, I think it was four X, almost four X here over here, and it's, it's multiple even from the first testing one which he was, which was zero so you eventually get there so the problem with the subsidy is that I think.
 That's what I owning the communication problem is that the subsidy just lasted too long it just it was too long for the speed in which this relationship are growing, which has doesn't change the thesis that they will grow.
 It just changes the velocity of how those, those, those relationships are growing. I hope it's, I hope it's clear.
 And by the way within the realm of this possibility and the realm of legal binding and all that stuff, this will be part of the things that will discuss will be discussed with council with advisory council that we're trying to form to, you know, to kind of get together I was joking in the chat I can't wait to share the burden.
 Of enterprise shipping because it's what it is. Sometimes you gotta you gotta give some to get some, and the, and the promise that awfully we don't give too much the point that we can't is unsustainable, hence the change.
 All right, moving right along. What specific network milestone should the community use to judge whether the 141 HNT capital stations working for example, daily offload carrier account life countries can never commit to public milestone targets.
 Mario you jump right in on on this, and how we're thinking about it. Let me get into that so it's very hard. It's very hard to. So let me say differently, our job. I'm talking to our as Nova.
 Our job is Nova is to create to help creating systems that promote the network as a whole to carriers. Our job is to grow those relationship and those contracts. Our job is to create is to create contractual leverage with those carriers.
 We don't necessarily control the speed of the network that at which the network grows I mean, woody shared on the past, the past AMA brownfield versus greenfield deployments and a clear correlation of course so the price of the token with greenfield versus brownfield.
 So the speed and the velocity of the network. It is something that we, we should collectively think about it, hence you remember my, my introductory the call out to deployers, because I, we are not in the field doing this.
 And I am a huge respect for people in the field doing it. And so, what we can directly control that what we can control is trying to close more carriers. So I think definitely carry accounts definitely definitely be able to have the data usage going up but eventually
 it's all comes to also to the supply. I think that if tomorrow morning. We have someone that is doesn't care about just making an example okay if someone doesn't care about the value proposition of the revenue because the connectivity is already enough for them to move forward,
 and he has a million access point to to deploy and turning on tomorrow we will see the usage jump up, because the demand is there, because the carriers they are enabled they are already bringing their hundreds of millions of users to utilize the network,
 or we touch a little bit of the federal state agency, huge, I cannot say how much that is important because if all of a sudden there is a Monday to have Wi Fi interoperability on on some of those buildings and school districts and government buildings.
 All of a sudden we can see a jump into into the data usage so I'm trying to shy away from a goal no I'm not I think we should try to have.
 We do have goals we have done internally with Nova my team, Woody and Mark Phillips they know about these goals in the past and even now.
 So we can think about goals I did I think I said something about 17 like 17 to 20 X in three years, I think it's possible to get there but this is like a pie in the sky type of number that is a function of many things.
 So, it's very hard. All this to say it's very hard to be like in exactly 12 months Mark shared last.
 Mark Phillips shared that we have in a in a bull case and other we have 100 million potential the day you are there to the networking in 12 months.
 I will also share that there is some good news and there are some possible venues, for example, I hint on it and I don't want to shy away from the comment again let me double double down on the transparency piece.
 There is one of the carriers right now that we with in a partner in our in our carrier relationship that is operating on a business model which is probably not sustainable.
 So I don't know, we might see we might see one of the carrier drop, not because of our fall necessarily because on a sustainable business relationship.
 So, and that doesn't mean that will go away you only will come back we're working on other ways to do it. This is the enterprise shipping that, again, within the boundaries of what I can can be discussed within the council.
 So yes, new geography new carriers.
 I watch the utilization.
 I all the team is deeply deeply focused on that. And so, by the way, I just want to say before it becomes like.
 As you know, as usual, it often gets taken out of context when I say like commercial partner with sustainable terms is also the father. You know we already working on multiple path to backfill that under different type of agreement so it's, it's not something that is just going to happen
 and that's it like, and there's multiple multiples way to see into that. I just want to come out transparently say, this is hard. I'm not here to tell you, go buy the token is going to be 50 x from here like this is not how we do this.
 Guys, I won't be here. If I have to tell you this. If you want me to say that I'm not the right guy for the job. And I'm you're seeing me emotional because I am an emotional guy.
 I'm also very based when it comes to business dealings, and I'm telling you this is hard, but we can do this together. We are on the brink of creating something inevitable in the industry.
 I want to be us to be that someone else is going to do it if we don't do it. Someone else is going to do it. So, I would love that company to be us. And I don't want to be the one that almost made it.
 So, moving on. All right. And I agree, helium is inevitable. All right. Next question from the AMA, will there be Movistar offload all around Mexico in the future, just like AT&T right now and I think this one also just came in for us within the last couple of hours.
 So, yeah, so let me get it ready straight up again. Facts. So, Movistar offload is on the field. So, if you are deploying in expansion zone in Movistar, it is offloading into expansion zone.
 Also, as you know, again, facts. Movistar is in, they say that there is a US conglomerate named Oxio. It was announced potential buy from that conglomerate of Movistar.
 There hasn't been much news, public news and facts that can relate on that, but as you can imagine from a corporate structure, it kind of tends to take a little bit of the focus away when you are in the process of something like that.
 So that's the reason why maybe you don't spend a lot of time in doing PR when you are in the middle of that. What does it mean that it's changing?
 I was talking in Discord a couple of days ago and posting the co-marketing. Yes, there is going to be more work from the Movistar team into bringing more marketing in those regions, which means text-based campaigns.
 There is a landing page on the website, which is already live. If you haven't seen it, you can see it's called Zona Movistar.
 So it is a grind because those expansion zones are how we're getting evaluated as a network.
 Remember, we have to try to do to deliver what we promised. So we said that we were going to do the expansion zone. So we're going to try to deliver an expansion zone.
 There's been deploy your program in ground programs that Foundation First and Nova has been running for helping those deploy on the ground while the offload started.
 Also, AT&T, one of the carriers, you guys know which one, has already started to offload across all Mexico, not just expansion zone.
 Now, of course, that's a roaming agreement. We're expecting other carriers to do the same.
 There is other MVNO in the US that just had a conversation yesterday with one of the MVNO in the US that is looking at our Mexico sites to potentially offload.
 So this is what's happening there. So Movistar will not just turn on Mexico all around because it's just the way their roaming agreements are done internally are very geographic based, which again is facts.
 So the way the network today, for the ones that are not familiar, Movistar started as an MNO. Now they're more of an MVNO.
 They have an agreement. They have some shared towers. Again, all public information. You can go research.
 There is a shared agreement with a consortium that owns towers. They own part of it.
 But when it comes to data consumption, they use their more of an MVNO, which is a regional, a regional target, a regional rate.
 So there is some regions that are more interesting for them to fill as a start as we go.
 As some of those roaming agreements come to a renewal, maybe in the future, there might be opportunities for Movistar to expand.
 I hope it's clear. I hope it's clear that I'm really walking fine lines here.
 But I just want to say this is how real business is. Welcome to the world.
 All right. Moving a little bit of away from a growth question, more back to related to a proposal and kind of under governance.
 So will the timing and division of the mints be entirely the discretion of the council?
 Obviously, Nova would make requests for amounts in this process.
 I think that's a little bit about the accuracy there, Mario, if you want to jump in and take that.
 Two things around both the kind of that's the schedule and also kind of how, you know, I know that it's been a lot of back and forth.
 So I'm just going to comment on what it is today. That doesn't mean that what is the final hit.
 Yeah, I'll stop you there. That's that's already bounced out.
 He says it's exactly data. Yeah.
 You know what? That's my fault. That's a night. That's a nine day old question.
 All right. Do we want to is it worth kind of getting into the details of where that is right now or do we want to just move on, Mark?
 I don't think so. I think it's I think it's fine to just say like the current proposal already allows like the council to ask the council's roles to escalate today.
 There is a proposal by GMF to like have some flexibility there where like there is an within bounds.
 The council can actually affect change if the change is too large, it gets escalated up to community vote.
 But yes, there are basically ways for both the council and the community to request to amend or cancel the the the mint or the extra supplement that that that is being asked for in this hip.
 OK, excellent. Thank you. Apologies on my end.
 I'm definitely a little bit of autopilot on some of the stuff and didn't catch that. That was an older question.
 This one is also next one is an older question, but I think it's important that we make sure we say it again.
 So folks understand exactly how we're thinking about kind of the accountability and measures.
 If Nova reaches profitability or platform revenue becomes sufficient before the 36 month window ends, will Nova publicly support stopping the remaining capitalization mint?
 What financial or network conditions would make Nova say we no longer need the rest?
 The answer to the first one is absolutely yes. So the reason is about the reason about is to resource the network.
 Now, remember, if let's say the council and Nova and the community decide that we need to deploy your grant, that's a different story.
 When it comes about the operation part of the fund, there is a different reasons why they're no related to Nova necessarily. But I'm just saying, if the idea of that, if the revenue becomes sufficient for Nova to be self-sustaining, yes, absolutely.
 I always said from the beginning, we might not get to all of the grant, all of the mint to be utilized. So I would absolutely be in support.
 Also, by the way, the way we're discussing with the community members is that council would always that they will have the ability to vote, to try to to vote to how to change to how to the mint.
 And of course, as a secondary meaning as a bringing it to a vote to community.
 So all this to say that, yes, I'm no interested in a meeting more. I just really know my interest.
 It works against everybody's interest. So and there is no interest in adding more supply that is necessary to accomplish what we need to accomplish.
 So from my perspective, that is that is pretty much a very, very straight up answer.
 All right. Next one coming in here again, older ones.
 So just got check me if there's anything that's been addressed. How is the new five cent per gigabyte floor plan to be enforced? Will the floor be reflected in token price or paid out to deployers directly again?
 And that's not so inaccurate to get into this possible. Yeah, I think it's I think this was also answered by thank you for all that you do.
 There was also answered in general, I believe, in Discord, like just yesterday or the day before. But basically the there's no there's no HNT price.
 There's nothing that sets HNT price anywhere except that except what the market does. Right.
 So the way the the way the floor works is that it is it is re-emitted HNT from what the carrier burn was.
 So if the carrier burn is set to 10 cents a gigabyte, the floor set at five cents a gigabyte.
 The system will basically re-emit up to 50 percent of that carrier burn in HNT in order to like get to that five cents to that five cents price.
 So it's really not like setting an HNT price. It is re-emitting more HNT at the current price so that you so that as a deployer, you get five cents a gigabyte under the current 10 cents, 10 cents rule.
 Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Mark. Yes. Otherwise, I was going to move on since we got about six minutes.
 It's good. Let's let's move on. Let's make sure that we hit some big ones. Yeah, I mean, I'll just ask because they both got up both.
 There's two IoT questions that I think we can kind of cover these together.
 So first one is who are the big users of the IoT network? Can they be rotated into profitable lines of business?
 Second, also related to IoT, since we're at the point of asking for a mint, what is the purpose of subsidizing the IoT network considering there isn't a sustainable path for it in the foreseeable future?
 So let me start with the subsidization. So actually, we are not subsidizing IoT.
 And actually, as part of the proposal, the PoC is being retired in favor of useful useful coverage for for this.
 The second part we have been we have actually as Nova, we have been operating the IoT infrastructure at cost for for some time under this proposal with the with the PoC bucket.
 Basically, the data underflows is called will be redirected to an IoT operations fund to actually help fund the ongoing maintenance and operation of that infrastructure,
 including some some engineering time to like keep keep doing, you know, keep doing what we do. This stuff doesn't doesn't keep just keep working.
 And by the way, the other part is that right now we are we are resourcing the mobile carrier offload.
 Of course, as I say that the council is open to everybody right now.
 I can't name the largest IoT users without their permission the same way I can identify specific carrier users.
 So that's right now. That's where we see the demand. But this is this is a conversation.
 Again, if there are strong opinions about it, the stuff that we are missing, if you if you have a target adjustable market that we are missing.
 And I'm not saying in a sarcastic way, I'm saying in a factual way. Please, let's let's discuss.
 Let's get into the next. I know that we are coming up short, but it's a couple of them that we.
 Yeah, we got a question again, older one, but I think this is a good question because it's relates to growth.
 Our legacy tech stacks slowing carriers adoption of helium and existing markets are upcoming markets more or less antiquated.
 And what is Nova doing to help carriers upgrade and integrate?
 And Mario, let you interpret what we want to call upgrade since it might relate to kind of platform and intelligence.
 OK, you know, it's interesting because actually upcoming marketing market markets are actually many ways more advanced than the US.
 I'll give you an example like in terms of data consumption, in terms of data consumption,
 like Brazil is a digital is a digital economy, much more than the US.
 So the tech stack, they move as fast as the data that they carry moves.
 And so what I'm what I'm trying to get to is, for example, the metrics work, the joy pattern and the team is leading the code.
 Then let me get a little bit right curve, please. Access points are all based pretty much on the same stack.
 The name of the stack is called HostAPD. All the different OEMs, they use essentially a flavor of that of that stack.
 The metrics work that we did within within helium, the code that pulls those metrics out of the Qualcomm chipsets is the same for MediaTek and blah, blah, blah.
 That code will be made available, is already made available by the helium team as open source, the one that pulls the metrics.
 So why we did that is because we want to make as simple as possible for other OEMs to integrate that code in their code base.
 So between one from the top bottom, between the carriers asking for care for quality metrics and as giving the code that extracts those metrics from from Wi-Fi access point.
 That's how we accelerate that stack adoption, for example. That's one of the strategies that we started to do this strategy.
 Gosh, eight to ten months, if any of you as an as an as an experience with the ITF and there it comes, the joy pattern, the men, the men itself.
 If they have experience with the ITF and some other bodies, you've got to start years in advance in order to capitalize.
 One other common is that we've taken that model if the code is not a competitive advantage.
 So we try to open the source code to make it easier for other OEMs and for the operators to adopt a feature that helps
 move the quality of offload, the trust in offload forward because that's good for all of the offload operators.
 Hey, thank you. Thank you, Joey. Thank you, Joey. We are now at we got an hour. I know a lot of folks in this team have other calls to jump off to as we continue to have a lot of great progress in the demand side.
 But obviously, we want to make sure we're making time to discuss the proposal, answer all of your questions, be here and available for the community that is building this network.
 I'm going to cut myself off because Mario, you've got the helm here. Is there anything else you want to say in closing or we continue to work through the proposal?
 The one thing I'll quickly add is I think we've had a lot of good discussion before the weekend.
 We are going to try to get out with the community for firm dates of when the vote will open and how long that vote will run.
 But I want to hand off to Mario from here. You know, thank you. I think that my initial remarks are still valid. Please, I would love to hear more than four people in that channel.
 And know that I don't like the four people. There's nothing to do with it. I'm just saying that I want to see more participation and I would love to hear more thoughts, especially based arguments.
 You know that I like those and I always respond to the best of my ability to those very well-formed arguments. So let's all acknowledge the pivotal point where we are and what I say stands true.
 I know that what we are building, the way we are building is inevitable. Let's try to be us, the ones that make it.
 Excellent. Well, again, thank you everybody for making time to join today, for all your comments, all the productive and constructive discussion on the proposal.
 So we can move forward with this really exciting next era, next chapter. But we will see you all in channel and thank you for making time.
 Have a great day everybody. Take care.