Think Differently. Solve the Impossible.

 

Show Notes

Website: http://coordisc.com/

Patent pending: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160358256A1

White paper: https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.229/246.5fc.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CDM_whitepaper.pdf

Video explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8aOEcDV7MA

Short video: http://coordisc.com/video-explanation/

Noah’s Podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/the4thage

LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/noah-healy/

Petition https://www.change.org/CDM_patent

Transcript

My guest today is Noah Healy.

Noah is a market designer and game theorist, working on better economic systems.

After being trained in nuclear engineering, he worked for tech startups at the peak of the dot-com boom.

His fascination with mathematics and information and computation led him to develop innovations that make commodity market trading more efficient, the result of which is things could cost less for us consumers if his invention is adapted by those in market trading.

Some of this is going to be a bit technical on the surface.

It's complex, so Noah is going to explain it to us all in plain English on how his invention can actually save us all money by having a more stable pricing system and making it more attractive for those producing commodities, say a farmer or anybody making commodities, to stay in business because they don't want to be in business or they can't make money.

And if they make too much of something, the price goes down and they go out of business.

And if they don't make enough, then prices go up and we can't buy.

So it's a topic that affects everyone.

What things cost, how prices are set, why prices get so high.

More importantly, Noah has a solution on how we can improve market trading so things work out for everybody.

Noah, welcome to my show.

Oh yeah, thanks, Daniel, thanks for having me here.

Did I do an okay job?

Oh, absolutely.

I'm looking forward to doing all of that in plain English.

And I'll do my very best.

Tell me, tell us what your official system is called.

So I called it Coordinated Discovery Market because it's based on coordination game theory and price discovery.

So it's a Coordinated Discovery System.

Because doing my research, and by the way, you have a video that's really helpful.

It's animated.

It's almost like a cartoon.

It explains back in 1800 how it all started, this market trading, right, with the farmer wants to sell something.

But how much can I make if I decide I want to get into the farming business and grow wheat?

He's got to know, so he knows how much it's going to cost.

Can I even bother?

And then how much should I make?

Because on the flip side, you don't want to flood the market.

And you want to keep the price set to where supply ideally equals demand.

Those of you high school economics, if you remember things get expensive because you have more demand than or things go down if you have less, you want to keep it stable.

How things get started and get to the point where investors like Wall Street got involved and things got complex and got to where it wasn't a fair system?

Well, the Wall Street getting involved and the investors getting involved isn't really what drove it to become an unfair system.

They've been involved for centuries now.

The thing that really changed, and this is in the last half to third century, is that we have computers now.

And you'll hear from time to time in various places that technology is neutral.

It's not good or bad.

It's how you use it.

Well, that's nonsense basically.

There are niches, there's roles that exist within our society.

And when the underlying technology changes, those roles change.

And so you see this, there's a phenomenon called island extinction, where creatures on small islands tend to become very weird.

Like New Zealand has a flightless parrot that's rapidly going extinct because cats now exist on New Zealand because we brought them there.

The dodo of course famously went extinct.

When an environment that has a very high level gets introduced, the creatures from that environment gets introduced to an environment with fewer niches, the environment with fewer niches tend to get wiped out.

And so what computers do is they improve our ability to analyze large amounts of data and make decisions very quickly.

That has value across society, but it has differential value.

And for that investor class, that was the grease that made the wheels turn in the markets for centuries, it's incredibly valuable to them.

And it's so valuable as in fact, turned them upside down.

And so-

These are, I'm losing you a little bit because what I meant by things got muddled up is with these investors, are there not pure speculators who really don't care a bean about if there's beans to eat?

They're just trying to make money.

They're never going to buy or sell the product actually.

Yes.

Yes.

Well, that was just what I was getting to.

They're now able to collect so much money that they are, instead of greasing the wheels, sort of gumming up the wheels.

Because the system relied on a certain competitive parity between the people that actually needed to trade through the system and the people that simply wanted to trade in the system.

Computers have made trading in the system more and more profitable.

And so many, many more people, sorry.

But you're a pretty smart guy, and so you'll understand when my brain is like, wow, how did that thought come in?

But you told me about it yesterday a little bit.

Because when you say this, I'm thinking, oh, this is good because I'm an investor.

That's what I do.

I sit at my desk, get home all day, I've got money and Charles Schwab, it's fun.

But you don't realize you're competing against yourself, right?

Because that same system you're making money is muddling up, like you said, degreasing the wheels for the economic system, which then when you go to retire, you've kind of, what's the word?

You set it up for a down spiral.

Yeah, the death spiral effect.

So the economy isn't actually doing as well as the markets claim that it is.

And they've been able to sort of create this phantasm of good working.

So investments, for example, many people have savings in 401k or whatnot.

The latest cohort, single-mail median savings is reported at $100,000, which isn't a lot for a 10-

to 20-year retirement, really.

But the idea is it's invested in the market and the market will keep going up, and that might keep you alive.

Well, let's think about whether or not that market's going up.

Imagine a world where we don't have all these complicated investments.

Imagine we just had one investment called savings.

So when people wanted to save money, they would buy savings, the price of savings would go up, they'd own some of it, and then when they needed that savings back, they would sell savings, prices savings would go down, and they'd have some cash that they could use.

Because the money is really being invested.

Honestly invested and the investment goes up, the business makes money and develops, it's an honest investment.

Sure.

Now imagine a world where it works like that, but there's a lot of people who are all the same age, or pretty close to the same age.

So they're all going to be saving it around the same time.

So they're all going to be buying savings around the same time.

Price of savings goes up a lot.

If there aren't as many people after them, which for the people born in the 40s to 60s, that's the way it works.

When they sell, there aren't a large fund of buyers to buy back.

And so that price will go down to whatever the next generation can actually buy for.

And since entry level jobs are getting harder to get, the local businesses are being pushed closer to the edge, the value proposition actually isn't there.

And so that 100,000 in savings that the median retiree has is actually being massively overstated by the market place.

And again, it's computers that allow for this ledger domain to happen, because what they do is allow many, many, many trades to appear to be happening at very low cost.

And so we've seen this divide between the insiders and the outsiders.

In the most recent market crash, for example, there is now reporting that Warren Buffett and many other sort of high credit investors had essentially divested themselves.

I think Warren Buffett famously sold half of his Apple stock before the crash happened.

So the smart money is heading for the exits.

Probably most famously, Ray Dalio, who heads up the largest bond fund on earth, has been saying for several years now that the credit cycle that he bought into is over and effectively all of the fortunes of the world, including his, although he would like you not to do that, will be drained to nothing.

So it's all on paper.

I did learn this in economics.

About the only thing I'm like, wow, I think I'll stay in school, junior high.

When I had one teacher, they explained it perfectly.

I'd give you $100 in stock.

How much is it worth?

$100.

So $99, $100.

It's not worth anything to you sell it.

I get it.

It's just a piece of paper.

So all this is speculation.

I think most people understand that, but how does that tie back into everyday life?

If we're going to buy bread at the store, and because of this, the price of wheat is not what it would be if it was that the computer just focused on helping the farmer predict supply and demand and so that he could know how much, the perfect amount of wheat to grow to not oversupply or undersupply.

How does that all fit in there?

Well, so let's think about an economic transaction.

And we'll start at the grocery store.

So you're buying bread.

That bread is, let's call it four bucks a loaf.

It's getting expensive.

Yeah, it's getting a little crazy out there.

But let's say it's four bucks a loaf.

You don't like the super nice bread.

You don't like the super crappy bread.

You're buying the four dollar bread.

Well, you might be willing to pay an extra 50 cents.

Maybe if it was six dollar bread, you wouldn't buy that bread.

You'd be happy to pay less.

You would cheerfully pay three dollars for that bread.

You'd cheerfully pay two dollars for that bread.

What I'm used to buying the bread that I like.

So buy the bread you like and the bread is four dollars and you buy that bread.

Okay.

Well, there's a little bit of give.

Now, there's not a lot of markup usually by the grocery store.

But there is some.

They're making some sense on that.

Yeah.

That's something a lot of people don't realize.

It's like the gas station.

You blame the gas station or the grocery store, but they're really trying their best to just survive.

It's a volume of those guys.

They're buying that bread for 350 from the bakery.

Let's say.

Well, the bakery, again, they'd love to sell that for more.

They'd love to sell their bread for $4.

But the grocery store is keeping an eye on things, and it understands that if it had to buy that bread for, say, $4, you might have to charge $4.50, and you might not buy it anymore.

It's still on the thing and go stale.

So they're trying to match supply-demand.

The grocery store would be happy to buy that bread from the bakery for two bucks.

But we keep going down the supply chain.

And we'd like to keep it the same, predictable and exactly at the $3.50.

If I'm in the grocery store, I'm going to order half a million loaves.

Every six months, I can plan my future, right?

I mean, that's also part of this algorithm you're going to talk about.

That's all part of what we're dealing with.

But the thing to understand is that there's this tension.

There's a little bit of movement at each one of these stages, where the deal might still be able to happen with a few pennies one way or another.

And because of the volumes that we're talking about, a few pennies one way or another could functionally be thousands, millions of dollars.

So it's worth tugging on that rope to get it into that spot.

So we keep tracking these sort of tugs of ropes.

That's where we use the computer.

That's where this whole computer thing comes in, because with a lot of volume, pennies, fast, that's where these computers got involved, right?

Absolutely.

When we get to the, when we have the commodity market where the wheat's being traded, we now have hundreds of thousands of people that are involved in these transactions.

And that's too much for these to all be private one-on-one conversation.

All the grocery stores, all the shippers, the truckers, wheat growers, farmers, et cetera, et cetera, right?

Yeah.

If every wheat grower in America and Canada and New Zealand and Australia and Brazil and, you know, everywhere had to have a Rolodex with every single miller on earth and call around, they'd never grow any wheat because they'd spend, you know, more than a year on the phone just to negotiate.

Well, which they probably had to do before there were computers and even telephones.

Well, no, because they had markets.

The market existed as a centralized information clearing for everything to come together.

So that's the original stock market, the trading.

I called stock market for it.

Well, yeah, exactly.

Okay.

In fact, the stock market for stocks, the root of that is the same as the root for livestock or stock yard.

The those markets were originally developed for trading commodities, things like dyes and spices around the Mediterranean.

So before computers, no farmer had a role that role.

No legitimate farm would have a role at X-ray.

And he would ask if he would be connected to Wall Street or read the Wall Street Journal.

This is what I can expect to make off week based on these traders knowing the market and supply and demand, right?

Right.

Exactly.

And that's where supply and demand really meets the road on supply and demand, because the big piece of supply is getting the wheat out of the ground, and the big piece of demand is getting it turned into flour.

And so that's sort of the ultimate tug of rope to figure out.

Which is six months down the road to which, if I'm a farmer, I have to know ahead of time what I can expect to get paid.

And the people buying the stuff, the groceries, they have to kind of tell the traders what they expect to buy so that farmers know how much to expect to sell.

Well, that's where the traders in the Wall Street originally came in.

Exactly, right.

So, the farmer has some absolute minimum that he has to hit because he's got to make his, you know, credit payment to the bank and so on.

The miller has some absolute maximum that he can sell or the flowers can be so expensive, it'll break down the bakeries and the grocery stores and everything else.

And everything between that is the tug of war, but they're not tug of warring with each other.

There's a professional trader class that's tug of warring with both of them.

And then the conflict of interest, right?

Because that trader class has to make some money.

Everyone needs to make money.

Yes.

But they're greedy and some of them are only in it to make money.

They're not, they don't, they could be gluten, eating gluten free bread and not even care about if we have wheat in the world.

It's the people drinking beer that are really going to suffer if we're out of wheat, right?

Right.

Well, sure.

Well, the big issue is that they have mechanical advantage, that the computers don't help the farmers and the millers as much as they help the traders.

And so where it used to be a relatively fair tug of war, but some people were sort of professional athletes in better shape doing that trading thing.

Now, they just have industrial machines that pull the rope out of your hands.

And so they're doing all of their calculations and analysis to figure out among the farmers, what's the worst deal you can stand to take, and what conditions will you accept that worst deal, and how can I produce the conditions that make you accept the worst?

And you have no idea if it's fair or accurate, because you don't have access to the computer.

It's kind of like AI giving you the answer, not telling you how it came up with the answer.

This is the answer.

You got to trust me.

And I'm not going to tell you how I got to it.

And you can't do anything anyhow about it, because everyone else is going to follow the same rules.

Exactly.

In fact, the marketplace is the first artificial intelligence technology that we developed.

It was an artificial technology built out of human action.

And it shares certain unexplainable characteristics, where it's hard to understand.

Now, Noah, real quick, for those who, there's a lot who think artificial intelligence is intelligent to where it has emotions and can think.

They don't understand, no, it has what you program it to do.

That's the artificial part, and it's not intelligence, just fast.

Meaning, when I just try artificial intelligence, I think this system might have some kind of at the moral thing built in to say, no, this is not right, I got to help the farmer out.

No, if the people are programming the artificial intelligence of the traders to artificially make it, make them more money and actually put in there, don't worry so much about farmer, don't make as much.

I got to put my kids through college, and I'm going to Ivy League college.

That's what's in the AI system, right?

Yeah, it's an AI system built out of AI systems that are programmed in the way you describe, where the traders are sort of getting into these conflicts with people that don't have the technological support, and those people are getting pushed to the edge.

And so what we're seeing is a spread appearing.

And we see this in our economy, you can go look up government figures on the breakdown among different sectors.

And since pretty much the 70s, the financial sector has been growing as a proportion of the total economy.

So let's jump in and explain your invention and the solution.

And then real quick, your background.

This is a complex topic, just the jargon, a little on the mathematics.

So how does one like yourself go from clearly you have an affinity for mathematics, you must be good at it, you must love it.

How did you get it to this point, where you broke all this down, studied it, and then came up with mathematics for it?

The other direction, actually.

So I do have an affinity for mathematics.

I quite enjoy symbolic manipulation and computational process as it happens.

And once I discovered that that's what computers were actually doing and for, I really got into compilation interpretation and other purely computer style algorithmic understanding.

And so, I was working on the problem of finding consensus information on a network.

So, Twitter is an example of networked communication.

You've got people just like, you know, pouring text snippets into a big bucket.

Those things are spreading all over the place.

There's some things go viral, most things don't go viral.

Twitter does not have a consensus opinion on events.

You know, Elon Musk might support one particular, you know, social or political or economic cause.

And he certainly has the power to put his thumb on scales for that.

But the people who are on Twitter and what they call the fire hose, the stream of all the texts that are running through there, that does not have a consensus position that's in any way comprehensible.

So you were studying this, observing it?

I was studying the mathematics of how you could develop networks that would have or would come up with and declare a common opinion.

Like a data scientist?

Yes.

And as it happens, one of the applications of that is creating marketplaces.

And so once I-

Was this a hobby or was this your job?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I had gotten myself a self-created sabbatical, and my hobby is thinking about algorithmic mathematics.

And this was what I settled on thinking about.

And so I dabbled in data science a little bit, did some online courses, whatever.

And some of these, is this how you got the data for Twitter?

Like Yelp, for example, if you sign up for an account, tell them you just want to see their data, they'll share so much data with you.

Not the private stuff, right?

But you can actually access-

So I'm just using Twitter as an example.

I was not specifically interested in making Twitter function.

I think that's probably a lost cause.

I'm not particularly positive about most social media platforms, in fact.

However, markets are a much simpler concept.

Twitter, who knows why people are getting on Twitter?

Every individual has their own particular interests.

Markets have a much clearer map of incentives.

Producers are coming to marketplaces, as you pointed out, because they either have or would like to have a profitable business.

Consumers are mostly also there because they have or would like to have a profitable business.

How do you stumble upon that, though?

Is my question like, so you're a smart guy, you know math, that's a given from your background.

You went to college when you were still in high school.

But how did you discover or was it just intuition that popped into your head?

Hey, I think-

So I had solved this approach, these negotiation games, I call them.

It's a subset of game theory, of a particular kind of game and game theory, where you can add a player to a game, and that extra player will be a computer program that will behave in ways that will make that entire game work better for the other participants, whether they're humans or computers.

So I had that, and-

Yeah, your bio says gaming all over it, and that's what, too, I was thrown, I kept thinking it was gaming.

And how does it tie into this serious economic mathematics?

I was trying to make the connection.

So you're into gaming a lot?

To some extent.

A little bit.

Yeah.

That's part of it, though.

Okay.

You know, you have this gaming, you know, you understand games people play in the Wall Street and the market is a game, so.

Yeah.

If you're familiar with the Settlers of the Catan, I was actually, I believe, the first national champion of that in the United States.

I don't play, I play chess, maybe.

Okay.

I am nowhere near that impressive.

Congratulations.

I'm sure it's impressive.

Okay.

I'm just trying to, I get inspired by people doing their thing and live in the dream to the sense you're doing your quote purpose, like if you're passionate about it and it always fascinates me.

Like how did they get there?

What do they do?

Because you're into it deep and they're on the verge of success.

Like how did they get down that path?

That's why these questions come into my mind.

Absolutely.

Well, so I was telling a friend of mine about it, and he asked me if I could use this system to pay for market stock tips.

And I said, no, you can't.

Yeah.

Okay.

I said, no, you can't because you can't pay enough for the stock tips to make it worth providing them to you.

And when I was walking back to my house from his, I had an intuition that markets actually function by paying for stock tips.

That's functionally what's going on.

Those traders are making their money, they're getting paid for provision of information.

And so, I had this sort of picture in my head of this sort of twisted pretzel of recursion, where the system could be turned into a marketplace if it could be given its own interest in having a market system.

And that sounded like, to me, a very interesting kind of thing to think about.

And so, I decided to try to solve that problem.

Got it.

I'm right with you now.

Yeah, you're intuition-inspired, you get an idea and you kept following it.

You kept at it, and you had the talent and the mathematics in this case, and so forth.

Nice.

So, solving that problem involved learning a little bit more about markets.

I learned a lot more subsequently after I'd solved the problem.

And ultimately, coming up with this solution, the goal at the time of creating it was to mostly try to be on parity.

In general, the idea was that I should be no worse than as good.

And I was hoping to come up with something of equal kill.

What does that mean, be no worse?

You don't want to make things worse.

No, an invention should make things better.

Or be as good.

As be as good or better, but not worse.

Yeah, be as good or better.

So, if you were thinking about athletics, like the Olympics are happening.

It's hard to get worse right now.

It's hard to be worse.

So, you got that part's easy.

I'm talking about at the theoretical phase.

It turned out that I did a lot better than I actually was thinking that I was doing at the time.

Because I subscribed to some other fairly common assumptions that it turns out that I falsified.

So, that was an issue.

But that's what happened.

I was trying to solve this very challenging problem about information processing.

And when I looked at the math, the math is really, and I'm an aerospace engineer.

There are a lot of equations symbols in that.

Yeah.

Well, the most effective way to describe the most effective version I was able to come up with, uses integral equations, which are something that most people don't get exposed to, but are actually very common in control theory.

Because one of the issues with control theory is that there's basically always deviations from what you'd like whenever you're sort of affecting a system.

And you have to bear in mind not just the costs that you're bearing from mistakes, but also the costs you're bearing from bearing down and making the system do what you want it to do.

And so minimizing both of those things simultaneously becomes the challenge.

So you came up with this algorithm, this mathematics, and you have a model for how it can work in terms of how everyone still makes money, the people that make the wheat, the traders actually still make some money, a fair amount, and it's based on their performance, right?

If they put in useful information and use the algorithm, fairly, to actually, with the intention, help the economy, not just make money, they get rewarded or dewarded if they don't use it so honestly, right?

And what's it called?

Is that the Coordinated Discovery Market, CDM?

Yes, that's the CDM, the Coordinated Discovery Market.

It effectively extracts the trader from their current position of having a conflicted relationship on the buy side and a conflicted relationship on the sell side to having a cooperative relationship with facilitating other people's trades.

So rather than making their money by wangling their way into the middle of things and then the sharper their elbows get, the wider they get the parties to separate, the more money they make.

They make their money by bringing the parties as close together as possible.

Which would lower the prices for all of this then.

Exactly, yes.

And then the farmer stays in business, and he makes money, and he doesn't have to stress and wonder if he's going to be able to make the farm payment next year.

And we can go to the store and know, if the bread goes up to $4.05, it might also go down to $3.90.

But I can count on buying my bread, right?

Exactly, yes.

So what's stopping implementation?

First thing that comes to mind is anything this old, archaic, even though people like to throw around the word innovation.

They use innovation like they use the word green, like everything's green, everything's innovative, and yet nobody really wants to be innovative.

Tell me what's stopping you.

That's a big piece of it.

Yeah.

Lots of people who would like things to be innovative green would also like things to be exactly the way they expect them to be forever.

And there's a lot of tension.

I've had a number of conversations with financial insiders that they were unable to come up with counterarguments or reasons against it, but they still were not willing to move forward with any alteration to the way things are.

So I found...

They just don't want to tell you why, because they know they don't want to say it.

They don't want to be the ones to say it.

So that's why they're not telling you why, and they're not going with it, but they're not going to tell you why.

We know why.

They're making money.

That's what they do.

That's what they do.

That's what they think their purpose is.

That's their life, their life and their welfare is vested in that.

Absolutely.

Yes.

And so finding people who are in a position to operate marketplaces that also are willing to innovate is been quite the struggle.

Oh, you're trying to do like Bitcoin then.

Just forget about trying to sell the big people, go start your own thing on the side.

Well, there are four separate projects around the world that are attempting to set up markets that would incorporate this technology.

And I'm on the search for more.

Oh, and then theoretically, if I was a farmer or I was a big grocery store chain, or both of us at the same time approach a system like that, we could go, hey guys, let's just work on this system.

If we have enough of us and we're powerful enough to make it worth and strengthen numbers, right?

Exactly.

Well, that essentially is the foundational challenge, is that you need to draw in these two representative samples of two disparate groups simultaneously.

And so that becomes very challenging.

And that's where you are now with this.

And that's the challenge that I try to get out there and meet.

And like I said, there's four people in opening stages.

There's various degrees of time and effort that have been put into these things.

The most recent one actually just started about a month ago.

So very early days yet, we'll see.

That sounds exciting.

Yeah, exactly.

And I'm still looking out around the world.

Very famously in the last six months, we've seen massive disruptions in nickel, coca, and a few other.

There's another word that gets twisted on its head with innovation.

People promote.

I do disruption.

I'm a speaker, an expert on disruption.

Like it's a good thing, but nobody really wants it.

They think that means progress.

But the people, like the guys you were just talking to, and they wouldn't tell you why, they don't want to do it.

They don't really want disruption.

They just like to use that word, right?

And then there's real disruption, which is a real problem.

Because of...

Well, yeah, yeah.

If you're trying to build a life, you need some form of economic stability, some kind of sense to make out of things.

If next week people are going to stop eating wheat for three years, and then they're going to stop eating rice, like if everyone is going to switch from rice to wheat and then wheat to rice again, that's something that we can...

We could negotiate that as a species.

It would be pretty rough for certain farmers that wouldn't be able to switch their processes appropriately.

But if some kind of brand new retrovirus changed how humans worked for a little while, and then another one changed us back, then that's a thing that could be done.

Tell me about your patent process.

Oh, well, that's also gone crazy.

But you need it, right?

Because if you find investors in your company or you, I'm assuming you can't do...

Well, receiving a patent would open a whole new door for me to deal with.

So right now, I'm reaching out globally, essentially cold calling people in governments and other countries, people that work for markets around the world, brokers and so on, and just saying, hey, I'm this crazy guy who's a mathematician, and I have this system that's different from everything you've ever imagined.

And I can explain it to you if you want to sit still for a couple semesters of Calculus in about 15 minutes, or otherwise we can talk for a couple of hours, or you can read this white paper.

And what do you think?

Will you want to get into business with me?

And 99.96% of the time, they say no, thanks for, you know, you're an interesting person.

And why is that?

That's not what we do.

Well, because I am an interesting person and it isn't what they do.

So, you know, thank you very much.

They don't want to change the way they're doing things.

And it's kind of like, I know this is a common thing I observe is, well, if it was really that good, I would have heard about it already.

We'd already be doing it.

And who are you?

I get that question a lot.

You know, like the markets we've been using for 800 years, we haven't been using this.

Why haven't we been using this?

Why have we been using the other thing if this is better?

So, the irony thing is 10 or 20 years later, when you, they'll forget about you and go, oh, of course, this is the way we do things.

Of course, like, they could forget in, you know, a year, a year later, even if things, once a big change is made and everybody makes it, it's like a no brainer.

But if you just try to do it, yeah, you're a crazy mathematician.

Right.

Well, and a little historical anomaly, the markets that we presently use have no attributed inventor.

Our best historical guess is that they happened by accident.

That's what, when I was doing my research this morning, I was trying to figure out, you've animated video, which is really great and helpful and super easy to follow.

It had the year 1800 in there in terms of a farmer meeting with an investor or a consumer.

But then you try to find out the exact history and didn't really see it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's a fascinating story in its own right.

But yeah, it's just one of those things.

So the patent would open up a new door of having actual intellectual property.

And that would be potentially leverageable.

For those of you who are not familiar with that term, IP, intellectual property.

That's a key word with patents and not trademarks, patents, right?

Patent, copyright, trademark to some smaller extent, and also something called trade secrets are the sort of major forms of intellectual property.

Most people know what an invention is, but tell us what IP is, just so it's better understood, intellectual property.

IP, yeah.

So IP is an umbrella term that the US Patent Office and attorneys have come up with to refer to all of these things that the US Patent Office does.

Patents specifically offer exclusive access to a particular form of technology.

So a famous example that's used representatively for legal purposes.

In the early days of steel manufacture, sort of in the modern form, it was discovered that rather than making iron and sort of trying to push a little bit of carbon into it, a more efficient thing you could do was create sort of very high carbon iron, too high to really be steel, and then you could blow air and later oxygen through, and that would in some sense burn the carbon out, and that would create a much faster process of creating steel, the Bessemer system, that's how that works.

In the initial time of doing that, it was believed that blowing cold air into the system was superior to blowing hot air into the system, because cold air being denser would have more particles of oxygen in them, and make the entire thing work better.

There was a guy in England in the 1800s who discovered that in fact the process happens at specific temperatures, and so cold air or hot air, the air would have to be heated up to the right temperature, and so pumping cold air in just meant that you wound up burning up more coal in the firebox, it didn't change the temperature of the air.

And you'd have to cool that in hot air.

Right.

And so what actually you should do, he put this sort of box next to the chimney on his forge furnace, and he had the bellows come through there, so he was preheating the air with the waste heat from the system, and that lowered his cost because he didn't need as much fuel anymore.

So he patents this notion, and somebody-

Intellectual property, not an invention, meaning this is a drawing, it's not a drawing, it's an idea.

That's what I'm getting at, Noah.

Intellectual property is an idea, not a specific drawing, right?

Correct.

And so a little later, somebody basically, rather than putting a box on the side, they created the pipe network so that the air would go back and forth.

A heat exchanger, essentially.

It's more efficient, but it's still the same idea.

It's still the same idea, exactly.

And so he was able to successfully sue and say that they were copying his patent, and judges and courts agreed.

And that's the trick.

So with something like a copyright, it's very specific.

That would be the drawing for the bellow on the left side of, that's two feet high and that's six inches wide and so forth.

That will be a copyright.

So copyrights exist.

There are implementations.

There's even a public implementation that's open source right now under Creative Commons 4.0 that's up on GitHub and that exists.

That's under copyright.

If somebody were to use that without the existing licensure, respect the existing licensure, that would be against the law.

But if you just read that and wrote one of your own based on slightly different principles that were still within the scope of what the patent is describing, you could create an independent version of this thing without reference to me if you wanted to under copyright.

Whereas patent, because the foundational idea and the space around that idea gets covered, it's the kind of protection that's broad enough that companies with deep pockets are willing and interested to be able to jump in.

It offers them some security for the kinds of investments that would be involved in actually exploiting the technology.

Well, Daniel, as long as we're on the, um, is it, is it seven years after a patent that you lose, that you lose a right to how many years afterwards?

So I don't think it's that short.

I think, I think the term's 20 years, actually.

So 20 years, more reasonable, because at first when I hear, like, take your, your Coordinated Discovery Market algorithm.

One of my other thoughts this morning, trying to keep an open mind about you.

Well, he's got a vested interest because he's going to make money off his patent.

But then it's fair because you put a lot of work into this.

You should get at least 20 years of something that people just ignored you, didn't hung up the phone on you, and you spent all this time in the math and working on it, because that's the only way to encourage innovation is to reward those who take the time, and the effort, and the risk to just be failures to do it, right?

So it's 20 years or something.

Yeah, that's the basic idea.

And in exchange for that, it's the details are public.

So you can go look up, you can find it relatively easily on Google's Patent Search.

Which encourages and inspires future innovations once your patent expires, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Should it be granted after its expiration, anybody would be able to pick it up and use it.

Which is a smart capital investor or somebody to fund your idea.

Like you were speaking of where you're going around, picking up phone call and people trying to get it started.

A smart group like that would go, let's jump now.

Because we're on the ground floor of this thing, let's do it.

We're way ahead of the curb.

We'll get in, get used to doing the system, we'll be real efficient, plus we'll make more money.

And then everybody else come afterwards and we'll already be in.

Kind of like the idea of a lot of startups, right?

Exactly.

Yeah.

That would be the ideal for me and I think also the economy in general, as these systems.

There are some superficial differences between how we trade pork bellies and how we trade orange juice and how we trade aluminum.

But at base, those markets are a lot more similar to each other than they are different.

And so, if lithium...

It's like a car, you know, a pickup truck versus a car.

They have engines and...

Right, yeah, yeah.

And yeah, if you've never driven a pickup truck before and you're in bad weather conditions on a bad road, that's going to be pretty uncomfortable.

But if you've never driven a pickup truck before and you go jump in one to drive down a well-paved road on an open, sunny day, you're going to figure it out real fast if you already know how to drive a car.

And so if one of these, if this coal index in South Africa or coffee index in East Africa or even this DAO situation that's trying to launch in Singapore, and I can't really talk about the recent one.

And you know what, I was about to ask you to tell me exactly or more specifically who you've picked up the phone with recently.

I'm interested to know who you've been calling.

Well, the most recent people I've been talking to actually are from West Africa.

As I said, the cocoa market is currently going totally bananas because there was a very bad weather climate for chocolate this season in Ghana and some of those locations around there.

And so there's about a billion dollar miss in how much deliverable cocoa there actually is going to be this year.

And it was already fairly contentious because the big value add in chocolate is bean to bar, basically.

So I think it was Nigeria.

I can't remember exactly which one it was, but there was an incident in the spring where they announced that they weren't going to export to Switzerland because the beans sell for pennies a pound and the finished chocolate, high-quality finished chocolate, sells for dollars a pound.

And obviously, that's a big swing.

Now, they're not doing nothing.

High production of high-quality chocolate involves other expensive ingredients besides the chocolate and also involves a lot of skill to make the manufacturing work that way.

But it's still something that these countries that are actually growing the cocoa would prefer to internalize and start getting the investment so that they could build those factories there and have a dollar instead of a dime.

You're starting with chocolate.

I like that.

I like chocolate.

And I'm holding off on the cattle industry.

That's a big one.

Well, I'm a fan of chocolate myself.

I have talked to people in the cattle industry.

In fact, I was on a podcast with a woman that was interested in Australian dairy, actually.

This was maybe six months ago.

And they have a very oppressive dairy system there.

And they apparently have a problem with dairy farmer suicides, which is actually not something that's terribly uncommon worldwide.

You're going to save a life, Noah.

I would hope so.

I mean, the benefits to me of living on a world that has an economy that will keep working are the primary driver of getting me out of the bed.

The glimmering dream that I would cut the deal that's worth billions and billions of dollars, that certainly might happen and it would certainly be fantastic for me personally.

If that happened, as you note, I do have a very definite self-interest in that.

But we talked about that.

I think that's there and that'll take care of itself.

But even getting cut out of that and having these open source things with very much lower levels of participation, and take off and fix the economy, that death spiral we were talking about where the current systems are undermining the ability of the economy to even function in the first place, you know.

I am getting older, right?

Like I'm going to experience all of these things where I won't be able to depend on savings, like everybody else can't depend on them, and so on.

And so having a system that where it's even possible to have ambitions and succeed is what's keeping me in the game.

So where's your patent at?

Is there going to be any problems with the patent?

Or is it kind of on, it's you just file it and wait?

So, so many problems.

So I got an acceptance in 2019, which was then ignored.

What does that mean?

Who accept?

Oh, you mean it got officially, your application got accepted, but then they didn't do anything with it.

So when you apply for a patent, you get assigned an examiner.

So basically, they get somebody, and in some cases, they even have to do some training up.

But they get somebody who's an expert in understanding things.

And so, you know, kind of you and another engineer talk to each other about the engineering problem you're solving, and you convince them that you've actually solved an important engineering problem.

And then they give you something called a notice of acceptance.

And then you can take that acceptance and the sort of design plan, your patent, that you've marked up with them.

And you can take that to the clerk at the desk at the patent office and say, here, give me a patent.

And they'll say, stamp, stamp, boom, here's your patent.

That's what the process is supposed to look like.

I got a notice of acceptance.

I'd talk, you know, we'd talk to my examiner.

He'd said, yeah, this is brand new.

It's way better.

That's my job is to say things, you know, whether or not they're brand new and whether or not they're way better.

Here you go.

We took it to the clerk and they didn't stamp, stamp, here you go.

They just didn't do anything.

So we, my attorneys write them a letter and say, hey, you know, we filled out form A, we stuck it in slot B, and we're waiting here at delivery box F, and nothing's here, what's going on?

And they said, we're not going to do it, we haven't figured out why yet, we'll get back to you soon.

Oh, you think conflict of interest like someone who-

We haven't even gotten to the crazy stuff yet.

This is crazy.

Part of this is it's public knowledge, meaning you can go on the trademark in the, in the patent office and anyone can do this.

You can sign up to get notices, right?

So they probably have notices, the big players in these types of industries to be notified when anything on the grid pops up.

Oh, absolutely.

Yes.

So to which then the reason there's a process is, even if, even if you get a trademark or a patent before it's approved, before it gets approved, it goes for, again, public opinion, right?

And, and that's probably what happened, Noah.

Well, so it takes them a little while to come up with an objection, but they decide that their objection is going to be that it's useless, that it doesn't, it doesn't do anything that's better than anything that exists.

So it changed their mind, though, because at first they accepted it.

Right.

Well, but nonetheless, that's you're stuck with you.

You have to deal with that.

Well, so that that's a very bad line of attack because it's very difficult to claim that something that's algorithmically this much better is useless.

Especially when they accepted it to start with.

You have to backpedal defend.

Yeah, exactly.

So it takes me a little while to explain to my attorneys how insane this statement is.

I compiled some of the well-known papers.

One of them is actually hosted on the US.

You know, there's a standards department of the United States that keeps weights and measures and so on.

Yeah, I'm going to drag you down bad memory lane there.

But real quick.

So anyway, I get a second notice of acceptance in 2021.

That notice of acceptance is withdrawn three weeks after it's granted.

The examiner explains that they're under orders from people.

They're not allowed to talk about and don't agree with.

And the new version of and those people say that I can't have the patent because I will control the economy if the patent is granted.

He says, Look, I know this is complete bullshit, but I'm under orders.

I just have to write this down.

I'm not going to reverse my opinion no matter what you say because I already don't agree with this, but I have to I have to agree with it for my job.

Or they'll find someone who does.

They'll fire me and find somebody who writes.

So it's out of his hands.

We filed an appeal to the Patent Board in July of 2023.

They sent us a notice saying that they would hear that appeal in July of 2025.

They actually heard that appeal in July of 2024.

And so I just recently got the notice that the Appeal Board has decided to assert that the first objection from 2020.

Yours or the office?

Theirs.

When they ignored the thing in the first place, they're saying that, yes, it's completely useless.

We're just going to say so in spite of the fact that we can't support that.

Also.

So is it good?

That's good news, right?

Well, no, that's very bad news.

Oh, so they re-

They're reasserting their objection that it's useless, which they were forced to back down from because it's the same as asserting that one and two are the same number.

So the Patent Board asserted that one and two is the same number.

They also asserted that they, in their opinion, economics doesn't work the way anyone in the economics profession asserts that it works.

And consequently, I am overreaching, and I am talking about fundamental economic principles and not just a mechanism, which I've been really, really careful about, and my attorneys have been really circumscribed about.

So they asserted that one again with absolutely no claims.

They also brought out Supreme Court precedents from the 70s, when it wasn't actually possible to patent software to use those.

It sounds to me like to really...

They're scattershotting, yes.

And they won't tell you who's objecting or...

I mean, clearly there's somebody behind this.

It very much seems so, but I have some names now.

And at some point in the very near future, my attorneys are separating from the case, and I will be able to talk to the patent office.

I'll only ask about the who's behind it.

At first, it sounds aggressive, but I'm reminded of Arnold Schwarzenhager, read his book where he talks about when he was governor.

He thought he would take it.

He couldn't win, and he couldn't get anything changed.

So instead, he took it back to the voters for referendums, you know, make the voters, and the voters got mad.

Like, did you fix it?

We hired you.

So he got them on the airplanes.

Like, I realize I'm going to have to compromise, but I'm going to get them on board, meaning Noah, I'm guessing, you're guessing, if you found out who it was, instead of attacking them, you would go, hey guys, maybe we can work together.

Maybe you could be a partner in the patent.

I'll share the money.

I'm a good guy.

I just want to help the world, and I do deserve some money.

Which is granted.

I'm completely willing to be entirely reasonable about this, but I am deeply incensed at my government asserting mathematical nonsense, and the specific individuals that are asserting it on behalf of that government, I'm willing to go full ham on them.

You're like me, sometimes my stubbornness gets in a matars, some stubborn inverse.

Well, I backed down the CEO of the phone company last year on these kinds of issues.

Many people are basically unaware of the nature and consequences of computational mathematics, and lots of people assert things that are false.

And if you do that in a business context, that's illegal fraud.

It's fraud.

It's fraud.

If you go to court on that, it becomes lying under oath, and that's also illegal.

And so I have three members of the Patent Office that are currently in the jaws of a trap where they have created an official statement which is false on its face.

You don't have to understand anything other than what words mean to explain that this is false.

And I intend to use that.

There's nothing else, no, you have a good book out of it.

Maybe so.

I intend to use that as leverage to try to get to an actual decision maker and get, I absolutely insist on having a coherent decision.

Well, good for you.

So I didn't ask you how much time you had.

We're almost, we're at an hour.

What's next for you and even if the patent doesn't get approved, you can still continue, you're just not protected in terms of your investment?

Well, as I noted, this is about having other doors open.

So I'm currently dealing with one specific avenue of attack.

There's a handful of avenues of attack that are potentially available.

Some of them are much longer shots, and I'm not really doing much work on those.

But the patent was a completely new kind of avenue of attack that would have been available if I could receive it.

And that's where I was going.

So even if the patent, like if you put it aside and maybe just let it stay in limbo for the time, it's not, you don't need the patent to keep trying to implement this.

And you can do them simultaneously.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Someone could call you, like it sounds like you are still working with the chocolate people, and you even called the cattle people.

They could call you back.

You're keeping it going.

Absolutely, yeah.

There are, like I said, there's four projects that are up.

There's a couple of people that are kind of keeping their eyes open for potential projects.

And there's...

How do you keep your eyes?

How do you pick and choose?

Like get out the phone book and what page?

I've been using LinkedIn as a major networking opportunity, and I take a little bit of time each day to scan my feed, and I look for interesting posts or interesting comments, and then check their background and see if that meets sort of a potential criteria.

And if it does, I send outreach.

It will be in my show notes.

The Coordinated Discovery, your website, the patent that you have going, the white paper link, the video explanation on YouTube is great.

It's animated, easy to understand.

And you have your own podcast and your LinkedIn connection, that will all be in the show notes for this episode.

Awesome.

Yeah.

So that's been my mechanism.

I'll spread the word.

There is still a live petition around the patent.

I haven't quite shut that down yet.

I had thought that it would have another year to run.

But anybody that listens and would like to give me a little encouragement, change.org, it's under CDMPatent.

Is this something you signed to say I support this effort?

Yeah, basically.

You could show the Patent Office, look, I have half a million signatures.

Well, I have 204, I believe.

But that's one of those long shot avenues.

If that thing got to half a million, then there would be a very high probability that that would be something you could lever into a launch directly.

That's how Robinhood got started, in fact.

They had a successful viral marketing campaign to produce a list of people who would like to be clients without having to go through the process of getting allowed to actually look for clients.

So they kind of reversed the normal course.

Basically, it's like the people in the Patent Office, they just come to the census like, well, half a million people can't think he's a nutty mathematician.

So maybe there's something in economics we aren't considering and we need to have a second look.

Yeah.

Well, that would be my hope, yes.

The only reason I thought to ask you about patents is because I've had trademarks and I know just how expensive and automatic the rejection is.

For what?

Like, this is stupid.

This is like, why?

Like, in the jargon.

I don't know about intellectual property.

And but I didn't realize what path was going to lead us down.

That story is fantastic in terms of the conspiracy.

It's all like conspiratoria.

But you know, you don't use that word.

That's a good story.

That that's should have been half our show.

Well, yeah, potentially.

I mean, I've I've told that story a bunch these days.

And and like I say, it's developing.

They really should have actually processed the the thing by now.

So I'm really, really expecting today or tomorrow to get a notice that I'm actually allowed to talk to the Patent Office and and really get crazy on what you mean, allowed to like you have to be allowed to the Patent Office has a policy which seems to be a fairly recent vintage and might actually be because of me personally.

I left out the part of the story where I asked my congressional office to investigate and the congressional office not only got the slowest and least comprehensive response from the bureaucracy in their entire experience, they also for the first time ever, and they've dealt with the Patent Office before, and we're also dealing with them for other people, got a notice saying that the Patent Office only talks to one person on every issue period, and you're not it.

So we're never talking to you again.

It made them stop and think, hey, what's up with this?

Yeah.

So they were like, well, we can't really do anything else, you know, because like, they're not going to talk to us anymore.

And that's like, we're not going to, we're not going to hold up funding of the federal government to bribe them into to actually talking to you, like, we don't care about you enough for that, so.

Is there a specific industry, like the cattle or somebody huge, just one player that you think might, it's such a disadvantage to system like this, that they want to stop it?

Well, the people operating existing marketplaces, if they want to keep operating existing marketplaces and don't want to make more money would have that interest.

And what people are those?

Those are stockbrokers again?

Well, the CME group would be the major one.

So there's CME.

So it used to stand for Chicago Mercantile Exchange, but they bought so many of the exchanges in Chicago that they just changed their name from Chicago Mercantile Exchange to CME.

It's like Monsanto got so many complaints about their pesticide.

They changed it to a different name and nobody followed it.

Right.

Exactly.

And so there's a woman at that company that patents market mechanisms.

She patents a couple or three a year.

Oh, just like you do.

Well, in theory, yeah, except that, except that, yeah, except that the market mechanisms she's patenting are really, really trivial and not particularly valuable.

And they don't have, she doesn't have the mathematics, mathematical brain like you like.

Well, the thing I don't know, so there's a lot of names that appear on each of these patents.

Her name appears on all of them.

So conflict of interest.

So it looks to me like they have an executive whose job it is to manage some in house or close house group that as academics or other people come up with new ideas and market mechanisms, she works with them, gets the patent, her name is on it.

And that's how that's how market like a songwriter making money.

You try to get on the bill with someone who's successful and they don't help you write the song, they just put their name on it because you need their name.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Elvis Elvis don't sing anything that he didn't write.

Even though even though he don't write.

Everybody thought he wrote that song.

He didn't write any of them.

Yeah.

Yeah.

He had the money to buy them.

Right.

So back to the mercantile.

What's the acronym again?

CME.

The CME group.

CME.

So I'm trying to get the picture in my head.

Internally, they actually are developing algorithms.

That would make sense.

They're not as good.

Well, so here's an example.

In 2019, they had one where they got rejected, and so they appealed to the patent board, and the patent board said, yes, you are allowed to patent this.

And the issue at hand was that they had phone orders coming in and they had computer orders coming in.

And so they had this clock timer that they had created that was delaying the computer orders by a certain amount of time, because the phone orders involved somebody at the location trying to make a phone.

And getting information.

And so they like timed the phone timing and added the delay on the clock on the computer orders to make it so that there would be a parallel fairness, right?

And so they patented that.

And the board said that that was patentable.

Which is supporting your claim.

Well, I said that we claimed that that supported my claim.

They said that that was just a clock.

And yours has too much math in it.

Yours has too many equations and symbols.

What you're doing is too important.

We're not going to do it.

So yeah, I mean, that's pretty subjective.

You can-

Things are very incoherent.

But what's the real reason is what I was getting at is, what's the real reason that you're getting inhibited, slowed down, and by who, by who and by why.

What this is an example of, but it has to be bigger than the clock.

Do you have any idea?

I don't have access to that.

I mean, and that's the thing that makes conspiracy so-

It gets so viable.

Yeah, you just make stuff up.

You would fear the worst and it's something simple.

Like something simple like a clock.

It's a clock.

Like, yeah, you don't know.

Right.

Yeah.

It absolutely could be just as simple as incomprehension.

That this is complicated enough, but it ran across somebody's desk that was like, this is too complicated.

I'm just going to say no.

Or we've only got one scientist, we can put data scientist, we can put on a job and he's working on space, you know, Mars project or something.

And yeah, we haven't got, you know.

Yeah.

And it really might be as simple as that.

On the other hand, as you point out, like the CME group is aware that market mechanism patenting is a thing.

They have a department that does it professionally and generates multiple ones.

And I'm absolutely positive that this is on their radar, because it's not like I went to like the lamp section and I'm trying to hide this.

I'm going out public and putting this front and center.

Why isn't there more transparency with the trademark, I'm sorry, the patent office?

Why is this not transparent on, you know, someone complained to them?

Why is that not just public knowledge?

Well, so I don't know the answer to that question.

There is an un-transparent sector of the patent office called quality control, which is an internal department that does things like this.

The ignoring and acceptance isn't really their procedure, but withdrawing acceptance is their procedure.

And their job is to make sure that the examiners are doing what they're supposed to be doing.

You know, if you have some examiner that's gone rogue or been bribed or just isn't confident, having people checking up on them to make sure that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing is reasonable.

And they operate under a complete cloak of secrecy, supposedly to make leaning on them difficult to impossible.

It's kind of the opposite, though.

If you want to, if you want to bribe somebody, you know exactly who to go.

It's, it's, they're protected.

Well, that's, that's, yeah, that that's an interesting approach to to.

And I'm not even a bad guy.

I can't think like a criminal.

Yeah.

But yeah, it's an interesting approach to corruption control by making everything entirely secret.

Historically, that doesn't that doesn't really work out very well.

Well, we might be looking, right?

We might be looking at a case where it's not working out very well.

But we could be as simple as, like you said, they couldn't grasp the math.

Okay.

Yeah.

Who does for you to keep it going?

But that that same blockade also covers other sins because it might be something else.

The, it could be the CME group took a look at this and was like, holy crap.

And like I have spoken to people at the CME group.

Before COVID happened, I was at something called the Agricultural Commodity Futures Trading Convention, which isn't held all that often and you know, was out for a while after COVID happened.

But I spoke to people who were executives at the CME group.

There was one of them who requested a copy of my white paper.

I sent it to him.

I never heard anything from any of them ever again.

And later that year, I got my notice of acceptance.

So, like, it's a thing that I, they, at least some people in our organization know I exist and know what I'm doing, potentially.

And they very well may have been able to talk to somebody about a thumb going on a scale someplace.

And that person might have been, you know, a senior commerce department secretary who walked down.

Word is definitely going to get around, Noah.

Right.

Yeah, yeah.

Walk down the office and just said, yeah, that's not what we're doing here.

And I don't care what the reason is.

And unfortunately, once, when the word gets out and it's not in a positive light, the second person hearing it's not even going to digest, think about it, they're just going to go with the first person.

And I think what you need is one person that, kind of like Apple, Steve Jobs, when he was, you know, no one's, even Motorola, I worked at Motorola, and they approached us to, Apple approached us in the beginning to use their chip, the 6800 or 1000, it's not my bread and butter, art's names.

And we turned them down, we turned down Apple, because they weren't big enough.

At the time it was automotive.

Anywho, he found somebody really and made it work, you just need one person, you just need one like you're doing, one commodity supplier and the consumer work together that are genuine enough and just innovative enough, and just no BS to start with your thing, right?

Absolutely, yep.

And then you can forget about all the BS, because it's like Steve Jobs in Apple, duh, it's good product.

Yeah.

Well, you want it now, right?

Well, yeah, the other lesson I got from the Agricultural Commodity Trading Convention is that there is an insane degree of animosity between the customer base of these markets and the markets themselves.

The farmers are absolutely positive they're getting screwed and are pretty close to mad enough to kill.

Think about it.

Yeah.

The first, last, and only reason that any of the, what I call edge users, the people that are actually trading through the markets, give for using the markets as their lifeline for their business, is no choice.

No choice.

It's like the, that, so.

Oh, they have to use that market trading system.

Yeah.

That is, that is the only reason.

None of them are like, oh, Bill's a great guy.

Oh, I've been running my business for 30 years and I'm doing great.

There's no, nobody has anything positive to say about that.

That's like my cell phone company or my phone company.

Right.

Yeah, there's two choices.

No, there's really only one.

I have no choice and I'm not happy with it.

What can I do?

Yeah.

That's why I use you.

I have no choice.

Right.

And that's, that's it.

And so if, if I can get, if I can get some ground scratched out and the seed planted and-

Wouldn't that make it easier for you though, because they don't like the service, the farmers and the, and the consumers, but it's the traders that have to actually use the service.

That's the problem.

Well, the farmers and the consumers actually can use my service directly.

That's one of the value propositions of it.

The thing that's difficult is that setting one of these things up requires regulatory compliance, and that costs millions to, if you're, if you're going like huge, which I do not intend to do out of the box, but that's millions to hundred million dollars up front cost.

And farmers and the consumers would have to pay.

Well, that the, that if I was doing it, I would have to pay up front.

What if you got the group that you got on board to pit?

Well, that's where it gets tricky.

So acquiring a group before you've gone through that process is technically illegal.

You're committing securities fraud.

Because you're offering securities positions without actually having the licensure and other things to do it.

So yeah, it's, it's hard to change things.

Yes, yes, it is.

Because it reminded me of as a songwriter, recently, as an organization of songwriters, we, we didn't sue Apple and Spotify.

We came to an agreement where they will give us all more money if we don't sue them.

And best of all, they will fund the system that tracks it and does the payout.

No royalties come off a percentage from your songwriting.

They'll go, oh, well, it's just for administration.

No, you pay for administration.

So they agreed to do that.

They have the pockets.

They're like, yeah, fine.

You guys set it up.

We'll pay to run it.

And then we'll give you your money.

Don't sue us.

That's why the idea of the farmers and the consumers funding it came to mind.

But if it's completely illegal, insider trading, which I still can't understand.

Yeah, it's rough to sort of wrap your head around these things.

Well, thanks for being on my show, Noah.

I wish you the best with everything.

And anything you can do to make the world a better place, I think that's a reason to wake up in the morning and feel good about yourself and keep going.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Hats off to you.

Well, great.

Talk to you later.

You too.

Have a great day.

Bye.