I think what also is tangible as you start explaining really the underpinning technology and what it's capable of that you immediately realize that there's probably endless possibilities in terms of directions you can go as the CEO of this company in terms of, hey, what do I want to commercialize? How do you approach a go-to-market strategy? How do you rationalize that endless possibilities into commercial realities? All of this potential doesn't matter if we don't turn it into something that creates value. And getting to those first applications are the value inflection points that we're aiming for next year. There's also some fundamental things we need to do kind of to make sure we're set up for the future long-term. So we're not sacrificing everything by just hard coding a solution for one thing and then it can't be used for anything else. So we have a very thorough and systematic approach to that every time we build on something, it basically becomes a rising tide that lifts all the different ships of the future as well. So a systematic platform approach, but with a focus on getting to market in the high valuable compounds slash chemicals spaces first, and then the extraordinary business opportunities that, for example, is the isobutanol and sustainable aviation fuel, where we have a partner in the US government that wants to and needs to see that happen and therefore is willing to sponsor that whole area. Yeah. So you talk about building blocks, right? And if I remember correctly, there's 20 amino acids, right, that are building blocks for proteins. How many different enzymes are there that you could study? So I'm asking that from the perspective of as you commercialize down one specific pathway, can you leverage the knowledge from that enzyme or several enzymes in that pathway to more quickly develop another product that can go to market? Yeah. So if we were just random in our approach, it would be kind of like a universe size worth of opportunities. And I say universe, where it's kind of borderline to you can't comprehend how big it is, even if you try. So obviously, that's not what we're doing. We are basically in a maneuver of taking a one step and maneuvering over to the next opportunity based on the So that's what I mean. So we have a lot of the things we have built already that then is enzymes we can reuse in the next project. And as people that have studied chemistry, maybe even more than you and I, Lou, they will know is that there's a lot of things that are the same chemicals that are used in very, very different places in the world, both in biology and the human build world. So there's a lot of opportunities of like, if you have the pathway, being able to break down this starting feedstock into these building blocks and build it up to this point, then the next couple of steps leads it to different product pathways. And also, which is fascinating in and of its own, when we talk about nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals, we don't need to just stay in the realm of what exists already in nature. So it can be a nutraceutical that then has already proven to have a benefit. But when we sit down and say, let's make a more potent version of it, or a version that if it's to be used as a drug won't have the side effects or can be delivered in a form that from a commercial point of view is much more valuable. So it gives us the new to nature, natural product opportunities. That is a fascinating conversation. That's interesting. So it's not just reproducing molecules, it's actually creating new molecules. That have enhanced potential capabilities. I think that's an important distinction that might not be immediately noticeable. Two, I would point out, you talk about getting into the weeds of chemistry. I was fortunate enough to host a chat. There was three guys in the room, two were smart. And then there was me with Tyler and then this lead scientist from NREL that really gets into their background in protein engineering and enzyme manufacturing and biomanufacturing that I would encourage everyone to listen to as well. If you want more details. I'm as an investor first and analyst first, I've always been more focused on the revenue and commercialization possibility. So as we talked about a little bit before, how you're prioritizing that, what can investors or potential shareholders think about in terms of what revenue could look like? What types of deals? Again, not putting a timeline on it, but as you look to solidify certain deals, what could it look like in terms of revenue? Yes. So let's start with the business models. We have a challenge opportunity in front of us when we are a platform that haven't been applied commercially before to just show some use cases so everybody can look at it and go like, okay, if you can do that, then you can also do it in my industry. So that's a value inflection point just from a negotiation with all our partners that someone goes first there. So obviously we are confident in our science and technology, so we are not afraid of leading that. And that means one of the three business models we can apply starts with a fully owned subsidiary. It's also a way of, there's a couple of business cases that are almost too good to be true kind of in their potential. Why should we license them out as the very first thing when we have no negotiation strength because we're a completely new company. So we will hold on to those business opportunities and move them forward so people can understand the immense potential of our platform while at the same time, it doesn't mean we have to own it in all future, but we want to basically build the value before we license it out or sell that opportunity. So that's a spin out, wholly old subsidiary business model. And the other end of the scale from an ownership perspective is when we're not going to take ownership directly in what we will do. We will build from a buyer solutions point of view. So let's say a pharma company comes and says that specific drug looks super interesting. Can you build this chemical production pathway so we can buy and manufacture it as a buyer solution and they want to own it. Then that's fine. That will be a fee for service for developing it. And then on top of that licensing deal where we will get different payments, either based on a revenue share model or on hitting specific milestones. And then in between you have the combination model that is a joint venture that is one of the types we are negotiating with people right now where they basically said like, wow, this is really interesting. Can we basically, maybe it's actually on our side, we're not willing to give up the whole ownership for just the licensing potential. So we do that. We do that journey together, especially in the cases where we have a first generation of a solution, but we can already foresee a couple of new generations coming after that. It would not be smart of us to license it out right away. So spin outs, joint ventures and licensing deals are overall how we will make revenue and asset build up. That is also really important when you talk about platform companies like ours, that it is a period of time where you're creating assets and of course selling those assets, either licensing or literally selling them. If it's a spin out company, you can literally sell the spin out company as an exit and bring that capital back to the company, either to reinvest or to go back out to your investors either one or the other way. There's a number of ways you can do that. Yeah. So I'll get ribbed if I don't ask. The next to follow up question to this is you mentioned inactive negotiations. I mean, what's the scope of that look like? Is it a handful of companies in negotiation? Is it dozens? And is there a timeline where something can come across the transom again? I know you don't want to be too specific, but is it quarters, years? What's it look like from getting to that first potential deal that would give investors a feel for what the revenue model looks like? Yes. Obviously, as I've been stating before, we have this year talked to more than 100 companies in either joint venture or spin out, partly because we wanted to make sure that our strategy and focus would be the right thing. Partly also to find the right partners that can go first. And we will be limited in the first part of our journey on how many partnerships we can take on. So it's important we take on the right ones. And we will already next year introduce a couple of either partnerships or these spin out style joint ventures or fully owned subsidiaries. We will report on a quarterly basis starting next year. And we will be sharing the opportunities when they have been negotiated and it's ready to be communicated in a form where everybody gets the information at the same time. Yeah, no, I think that's good, too. I mean, you're touching upon the fact that there's going to be traditional press releases, obviously, on material business events. But one of the things I've appreciated about you and the team is that you find other ways to communicate and provide context to potential investors and current shareholders through social media, particularly LinkedIn. Are those efforts going to continue? Things like this, fireside chats? I mean, how do you look at communication? You know, we talked about commercialization. How do you look? How do you think of communication strategy as a CEO? Yeah, I think you're exactly right, because this is a journey that will have many different stages. Communication is going to be key. And you're very helpful right now and have been many times before. And I also see you play a central role in the future of helping to get these both long term overviews, but also very specific. What are next steps and diving deep into specific use cases? So, yes, we will be using video as we're doing here. The long format of conversation we will be using reporting where it's more of a investor call style reporting. And we will be using even shorter formats than that that is suitable for social media. I think what is a big part of a challenge when you have fundamental tech breakthroughs is to kind of get it broken down to bite sized pieces so people can appreciate the competitive advantages and the new value propositions that it allows for in certain market segments. Also, because we're not just communicating to our investors, but also to future potential partners so that people can have that aha moment of like, wow, if they can do that in that market, they would be able to do that in my market. And obviously, taking a step forward from a people would like to secure themselves that competitive advantage. Yeah, no, and I just a friendly reminder to don't be afraid to repeat it often because us investors have short term memory loss. A lot of times we can't remember exactly what it is. The big technologies that we've got behind. So as much as every CEO wants to think they're the only investment people own, we own a few other stocks. So again, I will endeavor to do what I can to make sure that we're explaining the messaging clearly to