Jack Kruse: Bitcoin Is Under Attack ... And Nobody Is Talking About It

[00:00:02]10 years. That's how long Jack Cruz says this plan has been quietly unfolding right underneath our noses, hidden inside the very blockchain millions of people trust with their wealth, their savings, and honestly, in some cases, their entire financial future. And while everyone was busy celebrating ETF approvals, institutional adoption, and a Bitcoin price that crossed $100,000, something else was happening. Something methodical, something patient, something that most investors, even the experienced ones, completely missed.

[00:00:31]Jack Cruz stood on a stage in Prague and said something that genuinely made people uncomfortable. He said Bitcoin isn't being attacked from the outside.

[00:00:38]It's being quietly transformed from within, block by block, line by line, incentive by incentive.

[00:00:45]And if he's even partially right, the implications for your portfolio, for financial sovereignty, and for what Bitcoin actually is 20 years from now, are enormous. Now, before we go any further, a quick reminder.

[00:00:56]If you're new here, welcome to the Wealth Continuum. We don't do surface-level takes here. We go deep. We follow the data, the incentives, and the long-term trends that most financial channels won't touch. If that's the kind of content you want in your feed, hit that subscribe button now because what's coming in this video is exactly why this channel exists.

[00:01:13]Quick note.

[00:01:14]This video is for educational and entertainment purposes only. Nothing in this video constitutes financial advice, investment advice, or legal advice.

[00:01:22]Always do your own research and consult with a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions.

[00:01:27]Cryptocurrency investments involve significant risk, including the potential loss of principal. Now, let's begin.

[00:01:34]Let me ask you something before we dive in.

[00:01:36]Why did you first get interested in Bitcoin?

[00:01:39]Was it the price, the technology, the idea of money that nobody controls?

[00:01:43]Think about that for a second because your answer matters for everything we're about to discuss. When Satoshi Nakamoto released Bitcoin's white paper in 2008 and then launched the network in 2009, the vision was elegant in its simplicity.

[00:01:56]Build a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, create a decentralized monetary network where anyone anywhere on the planet could send value without asking permission from a bank, a government, or corporation. No middleman, no gatekeepers, no central authority deciding who gets to participate and who doesn't. Every block added to the blockchain would contain what Bitcoin was always meant to carry. Transactions.

[00:02:17]People exchanging value. People using money freely, globally, without borders or barriers. That simplicity wasn't a limitation, it was the superpower.

[00:02:26]Bitcoin wasn't trying to be everything.

[00:02:28]It wasn't designed to store your vacation photos or host digital collectibles or become a filing cabinet for the internet. It was designed to be one thing and to do that one thing better than anything humanity had ever built before. It was designed to be money.

[00:02:42]And for the first several years, that vision held. Bitcoin remained more or less what Satoshi intended. A financial network, a monetary system, a tool for economic freedom. But then, something changed. A technological door opened that nobody fully anticipated. And once it opened, a fierce, passionate, sometimes ugly debate erupted inside the Bitcoin community that continues to this day.

[00:03:04]And according to Jack Cruz, that door opening wasn't accidental.

[00:03:08]But here's what they're not telling you.

[00:03:10]The real story isn't about the technology itself. It's about who benefits from that technology being used in a very specific way.

[00:03:17]And that's where this gets genuinely fascinating. Stay with me because the next section is where the controversy really begins. Quick question for the comments.

[00:03:25]What are you doing while watching this video right now? Are you on your lunch break, commuting, lying in bed at night, going down a rabbit hole? Drop it below because I'm genuinely curious about who's watching this. All right.

[00:03:36]Let's talk about ordinals. If you've been in the Bitcoin space recently, you've heard the word. Maybe you've seen headlines about Bitcoin NFTs or digital inscriptions. Maybe you brushed past it thinking it was just another crypto fad.

[00:03:47]But the technical reality here is actually critical to understanding everything Jack Cruz is warning about.

[00:03:52]Here's the simple version.

[00:03:54]A single Bitcoin is not one indivisible coin. It's made up of 100 million smaller units called satoshis. For most of Bitcoin's history, satoshis were essentially interchangeable. One satoshi is the same as any other satoshi, the way one cent is the same as any other cent. Then came ordinals.

[00:04:10]Ordinals introduced a system for giving individual satoshis a unique identity.

[00:04:15]By assigning sequential numbers to satoshis based on the order they were mined, it became possible to track specific satoshis across the blockchain.

[00:04:22]And once you can identify a specific satoshi, you can attach information to it. Text, images, documents, software code, artwork. This process of attaching information to a satoshi is called an inscription.

[00:04:35]And collectively, these inscriptions are what people call Bitcoin NFTs or Bitcoin ordinals.

[00:04:40]When this launched in early 2023, the reaction inside Bitcoin was immediate and divided. Supporters were genuinely excited. For the first time, digital assets could be created directly on Bitcoin itself. Not on Ethereum, not on Solana, not on some separate blockchain with weaker security. Directly on the most battle-tested, most secure blockchain in existence. To believers in ordinals, this was proof that Bitcoin was still evolving, still growing, still capable of supporting entirely new industries and use cases.

[00:05:08]But critics looked at the exact same development and saw something completely different. They saw congestion. They saw non-financial data flooding a network that was built to process financial transactions. They saw ordinary users competing for block space against people posting digital artwork. They saw fees spiking. They saw Bitcoin being used for something fundamentally different from what it was designed to do. And both sides claimed they were defending Bitcoin.

[00:05:32]This is where it gets really concerning, because beneath the technical debate was something much deeper.

[00:05:37]A question that Bitcoin's community had never fully resolved and still hasn't.

[00:05:41]What is Bitcoin actually for?

[00:05:44]And the uncomfortable truth is the answer to that question isn't written anywhere. It's not in the white paper. It's not in the code. It lives in the ongoing, messy, human process of consensus.

[00:05:55]And consensus can be influenced.

[00:05:56]Consensus can be shaped. Consensus can be captured. Which brings us to the core of Jack Dorsey's warning.

[00:06:03]You need to understand this before I show you what's next. Because if you miss this part, the rest of the video won't fully land. Jack Dorsey is not a typical Bitcoin critic. He's not a government official warning about criminal use cases. He's not a traditional finance person dismissing crypto as a bubble. He's a neurosurgeon with a deep, unusual background in biophysics and information theory who became deeply passionate about Bitcoin specifically because of its monetary properties. And his argument isn't that Bitcoin is being attacked by an obvious external enemy. His argument is far more unsettling than that. He believes Bitcoin is being slowly, quietly transformed from within.

[00:06:38]And the mechanism of that transformation is something almost nobody in the mainstream Bitcoin conversation is discussing openly. Here's the framework.

[00:06:45]Bitcoin's most valuable, most scarce resource is block space. Every 10 minutes on average, a new block is added to the Bitcoin blockchain. That block has a limited capacity. That capacity determines how many transactions can be confirmed. It determines fees.

[00:06:58]It determines who can afford to use Bitcoin on chain and who can't. Block space is the real estate of the Bitcoin network. And just like real estate, when demand exceeds supply, prices rise.

[00:07:08]Now, for most of Bitcoin's history, the block space was almost entirely used for financial transactions.

[00:07:14]People sending Bitcoin to other people, businesses settling payments, exchanges processing withdrawals. That was the traffic on Bitcoin's highway. But Ordinals changed that. Suddenly, a significant portion of Bitcoin's block space was being used for something entirely different. Digital images, text files, collectibles, experiments, applications.

[00:07:33]And Dorsey's concern is this.

[00:07:35]If the long-term trend is toward more and more non-financial data competing for that same scarce block space, what happens to Bitcoin's ability to function as money? He describes it as a slow accumulation, not a dramatic collapse, not a sudden crisis, but a gradual drift where the network becomes increasingly expensive, increasingly congested, and increasingly difficult to use for the everyday financial transactions it was originally designed to handle. And the most dangerous part? Everything looks fine on the surface the entire time. Price goes up. Adoption continues.

[00:08:05]Institutions keep buying.

[00:08:07]Nothing seems wrong.

[00:08:09]Until, as Cruise puts it, one day it isn't fine.

[00:08:12]Hit like if this is making you think about Bitcoin differently than you did 10 minutes ago, because we're just getting started. Let me pause here for a second.

[00:08:20]How's the weather where you are right now? Drop your city and the weather in the comments. I love seeing where this community is watching from. We've got viewers from Karachi to Nairobi to São Paulo to Toronto. This is a genuinely global community and that matters when we're talking about a global monetary network. Okay.

[00:08:37]Back to Jack Cruise.

[00:08:38]And this is the part of his argument that most commentators skip over because it requires getting into territory that feels unusual for a Bitcoin discussion.

[00:08:47]Cruise doesn't frame this issue primarily as a software debate, he frames it as a physics argument.

[00:08:51]Specifically, he draws on a concept from information theory called Landauer's principle. Now, Landauer's principle is a real principle in physics, first articulated by Rolf Landauer in 1961.

[00:09:02]In its technical form, it states that erasing one bit of information in a computing system requires a minimum amount of energy and that this energy is released as heat.

[00:09:12]The principle establishes a fundamental physical link between information processing and thermodynamics. Cruise's application of this principle to Bitcoin is more conceptual than mathematical.

[00:09:22]His argument is essentially this: Information is never truly free. Every piece of data stored in a system has real consequences. There are no free additions. Every change creates trade-offs.

[00:09:32]Every byte of non-financial data filling a Bitcoin block is a byte that a financial transaction cannot occupy. And those tradeoffs compound over time. He compares it to a medical analogy.

[00:09:42]Imagine a surgeon who leaves behind a tiny fragment of damaged tissue during an operation. The patient wakes up, feels fine, goes home. Months pass, years pass, everything seems normal. The patient isn't sick, the patient isn't in pain. By every observable measure, the patient appears healthy. But quietly, beneath the surface, that small fragment is creating changes. And by the time the consequences become visible, addressing them is far more difficult and far more painful than it would have been early on. Whether you find that analogy compelling or not, it reveals something important about Cruse's worldview. He isn't warning about a problem that's going to crash Bitcoin tomorrow. He's warning about a trajectory, a direction of travel, a slow-moving transformation that, by the time it becomes undeniable, may be extraordinarily difficult to reverse. And that leads us directly to what is honestly the most intellectually interesting part of this entire debate.

[00:10:31]The fee paradox. Stay with me, because this next section is where economists and Bitcoin developers genuinely disagree. And understanding both sides is crucial for thinking clearly about this. Here's a question I want you to sit with while I explain this, because it's a genuine puzzle with no easy answer.

[00:10:47]If high transaction fees are good for Bitcoin security, but bad for Bitcoin's accessibility, which matters more? Think about that. Really think about it.

[00:10:55]Cuz your answer probably depends on what you think Bitcoin is fundamentally for.

[00:11:00]Here's the technical background.

[00:11:01]Bitcoin's miners, the network participants who process transactions and secure the blockchain, are currently compensated in two ways.

[00:11:09]First, they receive a block reward, a fixed amount of newly created Bitcoin for every block they successfully mine.

[00:11:14]Second, they collect transaction fees paid by users who want their transactions confirmed. So, here's the uncomfortable question that serious Bitcoin economists have been wrestling with for years.

[00:11:24]Is Bitcoin's current fee market robust enough to sustain network security without block rewards? And if not, where do higher fees come from?

[00:11:32]Supporters of ordinals make a compelling argument here.

[00:11:35]More demand for block space means higher fees. Higher fees mean miners earn more.

[00:11:40]More minor earnings mean stronger security incentives. And stronger security incentives mean a more secure network. From this perspective, inscriptions don't weaken Bitcoin. They strengthen it. They create organic fee pressure that the network desperately needs as block rewards continue declining.

[00:11:55]This isn't a fringe argument. It's made by serious, technically sophisticated people who have been building in Bitcoin for years. But critics, including Cruz, see a different problem. What if the fees rise so high that ordinary users are priced out of the network entirely?

[00:12:09]What happens to financial sovereignty when a single on-chain transaction costs $50?

[00:12:14]Or $500?

[00:12:16]What happens to the vision of global permissionless money when the only entities that can afford to settle on Bitcoin's base layer are large institutions and governments? And here's the twist that makes this genuinely fascinating.

[00:12:27]If Bitcoin becomes too expensive for individuals to use, they get pushed to layer two solutions like the Lightning Network.

[00:12:34]And layer two solutions, while potentially useful, introduce their own trust assumptions and complexities that some argue fundamentally change Bitcoin's character.

[00:12:42]So, the question becomes, is a Bitcoin where individuals primarily interact through custodial layer two solutions still the same Bitcoin Satoshi envisioned? Comment below with your honest answer.

[00:12:54]Do you think high fees are good for Bitcoin long-term? Or do you think accessible on-chain transactions are essential?

[00:13:00]I want to know what this community actually thinks. But here's what they're not telling you about this fee debate.

[00:13:04]It doesn't happen in a vacuum. There are powerful interests with very strong opinions about how this plays out. And those interests have the resources to influence outcomes in ways that individual users simply don't. Which brings us to the section that I think is the most important in this entire video.

[00:13:20]Quick subscribe bait before we go deeper. If you want us to cover the specific layer two protocols that could either save or compromise Bitcoin's original vision, subscribe right now because that video is coming and you don't want to miss it.

[00:13:31]All right, let's follow the money.

[00:13:33]>> [snorts] >> One of the oldest, most reliable tools in analytical thinking is this.

[00:13:37]When you want to understand why powerful people or institutions behave a certain way, don't listen to what they say.

[00:13:43]Watch what they're incentivized to do.

[00:13:45]Cruse's argument takes a dramatic turn here because he's not just saying that inscriptions are technically problematic. He's arguing that the promotion of inscriptions, the normalization of non-financial data on Bitcoin, serves the interests of specific parties in ways that don't necessarily align with the interests of ordinary Bitcoin holders. Think about what happened to Bitcoin between 2020 and 2026.

[00:14:07]It went from a niche technology held by early adopters and technologists to a $1.8 trillion asset class with spot ETFs approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Bitcoin on the balance sheets of publicly traded companies, and serious government-level discussions about strategic Bitcoin reserves. That is an extraordinary transformation.

[00:14:26]And it brought in a completely different category of participant. Wall Street arrived.

[00:14:30]Not as a curiosity, but as a committed player with enormous capital and enormous influence. Institutional investors arrived, managing hundreds of billions of dollars with fiduciary obligations, regulatory requirements, and investment theses that looked nothing like those of early Bitcoin adopters. Corporations began accumulating Bitcoin at scale.

[00:14:48]Companies like Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy, have accumulated hundreds of thousands of Bitcoin. And ETF providers arrived, collecting billions in assets under management and earning fees on those assets indefinitely.

[00:15:01]Now, here's Cruse's core question. Do all of these parties want the same Bitcoin that early adopters wanted? A retail investor who bought Bitcoin in 2014 wants financial sovereignty. They want a money system that governments and banks can't manipulate. A large asset management firm wants yield, wants regulatory clarity, and wants an asset class they can sell to clients with comfortable legal protections.

[00:15:24]A government exploring a strategic reserve wants a geopolitical tool. They want influence over a major global asset. A mining company operating at scale wants maximum transaction fee revenue to sustain operations as block rewards decline. None of these interests are automatically evil or malicious, but they are different, sometimes significantly different.

[00:15:44]And when different interests compete for influence over an open-source network's direction, the outcome isn't always what individual users would choose. Cruise argues that this is where Bitcoin's real battlefield lies, not in price crashes, not in government bans, but in the quiet, gradual reshaping of what Bitcoin prioritizes and who Bitcoin serves. And that raises a question that almost never gets asked openly in mainstream Bitcoin discussions. Who actually controls Bitcoin's direction?

[00:16:10]This is where it gets really concerning, and it connects directly to something most investors have never thought about.

[00:16:16]Let me be honest with you for a second.

[00:16:18]This section is the one that makes Bitcoin maximalists the most uncomfortable because it touches on a tension that Bitcoin's community has never fully resolved. The popular narrative is that nobody controls Bitcoin. No CEO, no board, no government, no central authority.

[00:16:33]And that's largely true in a technical sense. No single party can unilaterally change Bitcoin's rules. But "Nobody controls it" and "Nobody influences it" are two very different statements. In reality, Bitcoin's direction is shaped by a relatively small group of core developers who review and implement code changes.

[00:16:50]It's shaped by large mining operations that control significant portions of the network's hash rate.

[00:16:55]It's shaped by companies that run major Bitcoin infrastructure, exchanges, custodians, payment processors, and it's shaped by influential voices whose opinions carry enormous weight in the community. Bitcoin has faced governance crises before. The most famous is the block size wars that raged from roughly 2015 to 2017.

[00:17:14]That conflict was about a simple question.

[00:17:16]Should Bitcoin's block size be increased to allow more transactions per block?

[00:17:21]What sounds like a technical debate was actually a philosophical and economic conflict. Larger blocks meant more transactions, but potentially more centralization because larger blocks are harder and more expensive to process, which could squeeze out smaller node operators. The conflict was so intense that it led to a hard fork, the creation of Bitcoin Cash as a separate network, and left scars in the community that remain visible today.

[00:17:43]Kruse believes a similar moment is building around the question of block content, not block size. Block content.

[00:17:49]What belongs on Bitcoin's blockchain and what doesn't? And the uncomfortable historical lesson from the block size wars is this. When powerful, well-funded interests align on one side of a Bitcoin governance debate, they have tools at their disposal that individual users simply don't have. They can fund developers, they can influence exchanges, they can shape media narratives, they can create economic pressure. That doesn't mean they always win.

[00:18:12]The block size wars showed that a determined community of individual users and node operators can resist well-funded lobbying efforts. But it's also not a guaranteed outcome. Think about this question and genuinely sit with it.

[00:18:24]If a version of Bitcoin emerged that was technically still called Bitcoin, still ran on the same network, still had the same 21 million cap, but was primarily used by institutions for large settlement rather than individuals for everyday financial sovereignty, would that still be the Bitcoin you believe in? Comment below. I actually want to know.

[00:18:42]Stay with me because the next part gets into the specific mechanism through which these changes happen. And this is the part that gives Kruse's argument its teeth. Share this video with one person in your life who cares about Bitcoin, but doesn't know about any of this.

[00:18:54]Seriously, this is exactly the kind of conversation that should be happening, and it's happening too quietly.

[00:19:00]Let's talk about BIPs, Bitcoin Improvement Proposals.

[00:19:04]If you haven't encountered this term before, don't worry. Most Bitcoin investors haven't either, and that's actually part of the problem Kruse is pointing to. A Bitcoin Improvement Proposal or BIP is the formal mechanism through which changes to Bitcoin are proposed, discussed, and potentially adopted. Any developer can write one.

[00:19:20]They get a number. They get documented.

[00:19:22]They get debated in technical forums, developer mailing lists, and conference presentations. Some BIPs become part of Bitcoin.

[00:19:29]SegWit, Segregated Witness, a major Bitcoin upgrade from 2017, started as a BIP. The Taproot upgrade that activated in 2021 started as a set of BIPs. These are real, significant changes that shaped what Bitcoin is today.

[00:19:45]But BIPs also represent the front lines of Bitcoin's governance battles. Because the BIP process is where debates about Bitcoin's future get formalized. It's where technical arguments get made, where community sentiment gets tested, and where the direction of the network gets negotiated. Kruse's argument is that most Bitcoin investors have no idea this process exists. They buy Bitcoin.

[00:20:05]They hold Bitcoin. They watch the price.

[00:20:07]And they assume that the Bitcoin they're holding is stable, permanent, and unchanging below the surface. But it isn't. Bitcoin is a living, evolving software system.

[00:20:15]And the people actively participating in its evolution have enormous influence over what it becomes. He's urging ordinary Bitcoin users, especially node operators, to pay attention, to engage with the BIP process, to understand what changes are being proposed and why, to make their preferences known through the choices they make about which software they run. Because here's something critically important that most people don't understand about Bitcoin's consensus mechanism. It's not purely democratic. It's not purely technocratic. It's a voluntary system where every participant makes choices about which rules they follow. When you run a Bitcoin node, you're voting with your technical choices. When you run software that enforces certain rules, you're saying those rules matter to you.

[00:20:55]And if enough participants make similar choices, those choices become consensus.

[00:21:00]This is why Kruse views the BIP process as a genuine battleground rather than a boring technical forum. Because the decisions made there often by a relatively small number of highly technical people shape what millions of Bitcoin holders are actually holding.

[00:21:14]Before we move on, there's something important we need to do. We need to look at the strongest argument against Jack Dorsey's position.

[00:21:21]Because good analysis isn't about finding evidence that supports what you already believe, it's about honestly engaging with the best arguments on both sides. So, let's ask the obvious question.

[00:21:31]What if Jack Dorsey is wrong? What if ordinals and inscriptions aren't an attack on Bitcoin at all?

[00:21:36]What if they're simply a natural evolution of an open permissionless technology finding new uses? The case for that view is actually quite compelling. Bitcoin's block space is scarce. That's a feature, not a bug.

[00:21:48]And in any market, scarce resources are allocated through price. If someone is willing to pay competitive transaction fees to place data on the blockchain, supporters argue that demand is economically legitimate. Bitcoin doesn't judge how block space is used. It simply allocates that space to whoever values it most. There's also the issue of minor economics. As Bitcoin's block rewards continue to decline over time, transaction fees become increasingly important. Ordinals and inscription activity have generated meaningful fee revenue during several periods since their launch.

[00:22:18]Supporters argue that this additional demand strengthens minor incentives and ultimately contributes to the network's long-term security. Then there's the practical challenge. If Bitcoin should only be used for financial transactions, who decides what counts as financial?

[00:22:31]Is a smart contract financial? Is a timestamp document financial? Is a tokenized asset financial? Drawing that line without introducing some form of centralized gatekeeping is far more difficult than it sounds.

[00:22:42]And perhaps most importantly, many respected Bitcoin developers and researchers believe concerns about inscriptions are overstated. They point out that Bitcoin has survived countless controversies throughout its history.

[00:22:54]Again and again, critics predicted disaster, and again and again the network adapted. These are serious arguments made by serious people.

[00:23:02]And that's why the honest answer is simple. Nobody knows exactly how this plays out. Bitcoin is a complex system operating in a rapidly changing world.

[00:23:10]The future isn't obvious, but regardless of which side you agree with, there are a few things every Bitcoin investor should be watching closely. First, watch transaction fees. They provide one of the clearest signals about demand for Bitcoin's limited block space and who is competing to use it. Second, pay attention to how Bitcoin's blockchain is being used over time. Is inscription activity growing, shrinking, or stabilizing? Trends matter far more than short-term headlines. Third, watch the growth of layer two solutions like the Lightning Network. The future of Bitcoin may depend heavily on how these scaling systems evolve and how widely they are adopted. Fourth, pay attention to developer discussions. You don't need to understand every line of code, but understanding the direction of major proposals can tell you a lot about where Bitcoin is heading long before mainstream media notices. And finally, watch incentives.

[00:23:56]When corporations hold hundreds of thousands of Bitcoin, when ETF providers manage billions of dollars in Bitcoin assets, and when governments begin accumulating Bitcoin reserves, their incentives inevitably become part of the story because the most important question isn't what is Bitcoin worth today?

[00:24:11]The more important question is, what is Bitcoin becoming?

[00:24:14]And that's really what this entire debate comes down to. When most people imagine a threat to Bitcoin, they think about governments, regulations, security breaches, or competing technologies.

[00:24:23]Jack Dorsey is warning about something different. A gradual transformation. A network that remains Bitcoin in name, remains globally recognized, remains technically functional, but slowly evolves into something different from what its earliest supporters envisioned.

[00:24:36]Maybe that evolution is beneficial.

[00:24:38]Maybe it's necessary. Maybe Bitcoin emerges stronger than ever. Or maybe Dorsey is right and powerful incentives are quietly shaping the future of the network in ways most investors haven't fully considered. Either way, one reality remains.

[00:24:51]Bitcoin was designed to remove the need for trusted intermediaries, but it never removed human incentives. And whenever something becomes as valuable as Bitcoin, competing interests will inevitably try to shape its future. The real question isn't whether Bitcoin is under attack. The real question is whether enough people are paying attention to the forces influencing its evolution because Bitcoin's future won't be decided by one dramatic event. It will be decided through thousands of small decisions, developer proposals, mining economics, institutional strategies, community debates, and choices being made right now by people most investors have never heard of. So, I'll leave you with one final question.

[00:25:27]Do you think Bitcoin is evolving in the right direction, or do you think Jack Cruz is right to sound the alarm? Let me know in the comments below. And if you enjoyed this analysis, subscribe to the Wealth Continuum.

[00:25:37]We don't chase headlines. We focus on incentives, long-term trends, and the deeper forces shaping the future of money. As always, stay curious, stay informed, and stay ahead of the crowd.

[00:25:47]We'll see you in the next one.