Bet - Will major CEX do 'off chain' LUNC burns

[FatManTerra]

DireWolfM14 - note I am addressing yourself, not FatMan. I see no benefit in responding to him. I've exhausted all such efforts.

- It is confirmed there is a dispute.
- The agreed terms clearly articulated how a dispute should be administered.
- There should be no alterations from the original terms.

6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider will determine the ‘winner’ on their sole discretion but must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision.

Please confirm your decision and intended action in due course by reply.

Dispute resolution involves formal submission of arguments from both sides... That has not happened yet. Moreover, you can't use the term in dispute to give yourself money before the bet has resolved, because it's literally the term being disputed.

DW: I trust your judgement and will honour your final decision. Whether you think formal arbitration is appropriate here or not, I will comply with your verdict without question or complaint.

[1715631682]

1715631682

[1715631682]

1715631682

[DireWolfM14]

Hello Gentlemen,
I will be taking a close look at this throughout the day, but please do not expect an opinion today.  If I have any questions I'll reach out to both of you here or on the Telegram chat.  I'm all about transparency, so I would appreciate any communication to be done here in public, in a PM discussion between the three of us, or on the Telegram group chat.

I would also like your permission to ask questions of other members here on the forum whom I trust to remain neutral have demonstrated rational judgement.  If I do reach out to others, I'll disclose their usernames as having contributed to my opinion.

[FatManTerra]

Hello Gentlemen,
I will be taking a close look at this throughout the day, but please do not expect an opinion today.  If I have any questions I'll reach out to both of you here or on the Telegram chat.  I'm all about transparency, so I would appreciate any communication to be done here in public, in a PM discussion between the three of us, or on the Telegram group chat.

I would also like your permission to ask questions of other members here on the forum whom I trust to remain neutral have demonstrated rational judgement.  If I do reach out to others, I'll disclose their usernames as having contributed to my opinion.

I'm in no rush. Take your time.

Feel free to ask whoever you like. Tomorrow I'll post some additional context regarding the spirit of our bet in the three-way chat along with my arguments to help inform your decision. Bit of a busy day today.

[nubcake_MeoW_]

DireWolfM14, noted with thanks.

In respect of any other aspect I am only repeating the same:
FatMan's repeated (and in my considered view intentionally dishonest) attempts to secure post-facto debate or submissions must rightly be ignored and/or not allowed. The original terms (see clauses 3 and 6) were agreed after a long process and are unequivocal on both the trigger for a 'refund' and the fact that the original terms are the 'sole basis' for any dispute determination.

It is further plainly unfair that, as part of the modest transaction fee, you should be imposed upon with any further debate or submissions (beyond what is strictly necessary in the application of the original agreed terms) particularly when the original terms specifically and undeniably addressed and sought to avoid that possibility.

My apologies and thanks again.

Noting only for future reference at this time:

In the last 24 hours Fatman has informed me, for the first time, that he intends to initiate a dispute in respect of the application of clause 3, should application of the clause become necessary.

Specifically he has indicated that he intends to claim victory, and full payment of the bet, should the tax be reduced by LUNC governance vote below the 0.9% threshold, or cancelled entirely, between 20/09/2022 and 01/01/2023. I strongly object to this and maintain it is an attempt to alter the original agreement. As such, there is a possible dispute looming.

No further action is required right now. At this moment it is possible (and my strong hope) that the bet can be concluded without needing to 'test' the application of clause 3. This will be the case if the tax is not reduced below 0.9% or cancelled by LUNC governance before 01/01/2023. Fatman has confirmed today that there remains agreement between us in respect of all other clauses.

I want to highight clause 6 which states:

6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider will determine the ‘winner’ on their sole discretion but must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision.

[emphasis added]

In the event of dispute, escrow providers should rely on the original terms as the "sole basis for their decision" without taking further submissions from Fatman or myself.

I regret that it seems necessary to note this item at this time.

Thank you

Again the agreement is clear:

6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider will determine the ‘winner’ on their sole discretion but must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision.

[Emphasis added]

There should be nothing further 'provided' or accepted by the escrow providers in respect of the agreement terms.

It is plainly inappropriate that you would seek any post-facto debate, submissions or alterations in respect of the terms, and/or to potentially seek to impose the same on the escrow providers.

[nubcake_MeoW_]

DireWolfM14:

Please consider the following.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161170.msg61166801#msg61166801

Most notably quoted from the above:

I don't object to you taking time to let this matter 'ventilate' before deciding but rather I understand why you may feel that approach is prudent.

I think it would help to limit drama/debate if you could, in the least, clarify by reply:

1. Will you refuse/ignore any submissions external to the original terms, as mandated by the original terms (i.e. will you uphold or disregard clause 6)?

2. Can you provide some guideance or ETA on your decision regarding the refund?

[nubcake_MeoW_]

DireWolfM14, would you kindly respond.

1. Will you refuse/ignore any submissions external to the original terms, as mandated by the original terms (i.e. will you uphold or disregard clause 6)?

2. Can you provide some guideance or ETA on your decision regarding the refund?

[DireWolfM14]

DireWolfM14, would you kindly respond.

1. Will you refuse/ignore any submissions external to the original terms, as mandated by the original terms (i.e. will you uphold or disregard clause 6)?

2. Can you provide some guideance or ETA on your decision regarding the refund?

Hello nubcake_MeoW,

I'm reluctant to agree with you that the bet qualifies as a draw, at least not yet.  My reluctance is partly due to the fact clause #3 doesn't include a timeframe, and since the bet does not reach maturity until January 1^st, 2023.

Bet terms:

3. If Terra Classic governance alters the on-chain burn tax to be less than 0.9%, or removes it entirely, the bet is considered void and both parties are refunded less an equal contribution to the escrow fees.

It's also fair to point out that FatMan does not wish to enter the dispute phase based on this specific disagreement, and would prefer to let the bet continue.  I think it would be unfair to make a decision at this time with that being the case.

Bet terms:

6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider will determine the ‘winner’ on their sole discretion but must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision.

Yet another reason I'm of the opinion that it's best to let the bet run it's course is that the LUNC burn initiative seems to be in flux.  Initially it was set to 1.2%, before it was recently reduced.  I'm not convinced that we've seen the last adjustment, nor am I convinced that CEXs won't impose other methods to burn LUNC.  FatMan posted a message from CZ indicating that Binance might impose a voluntary option to allow LUNC users to burn at their discretion, and using those opt-in values to determine how to proceed.  I understand that since CZ's message was published Binance has chosen to burn their spot trading fee, and not impose any further tax on their clients who trade LUNC, but again I'm not convinced this won't change before the deadline.  I'm of the opinion that you still have a chance to win this bet, and calling it a draw might be as much a disservice to you as it would be to FatMan.

[nubcake_MeoW_]

Hi DireWolfM14,

I'll make a brief formal response in advance of a longer and more specific reply if this is not sufficient to resolve the issue.

Your below response is very problematic because you're demonstrably disregarding and recasting the original terms.

One example among several I could note:
You’ve ignored clause 6 by accepting influence from FatMan's post-facto submissions, and even matters completely external (i.e. CZs posts).

You’ve not only breached clause 6, but in expanding your focus beyond the original terms you are further being unfair by not considering my position (I’ve not given a full response to FMs submissions, rather I’ve limited replies and generally only noted that all such post-facto material must be ignored as mandated by the original terms).

Before I make any further submissions, I maintain my request for an immeidate refund.

If you maintain a refusal, in the first instance I formally request that you specifically explain:
How does your below quoted position/post respect clause 6 (which you agreed to adhere to from the outset):

6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider ... must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision.

[Emphasis added]

And thereafter clause 3:

3. If Terra Classic governance alters the on-chain burn tax to be less than 0.9%, or removes it entirely, the bet is considered void and both parties are refunded less an equal contribution to the escrow fees.

The only way you can refuse the refund, is by recasting the original terms, because on their face they are clearly unequivocal as quoted above.

It is clear that clause three calls for an immediate refund if the tax is reduced below the threshold at any time prior to the bet being resolved.

Namely any time prior to 01/01/2023, as per clause 4:

4. The ‘burn tax’ must be announced by one of the above listed CEX before 01/01/2023 and implemented no later than 01/01/2024 for nubcake to ‘win’. If this does not occur FatMan ‘wins’. In the case that a ‘win’ becomes clearly apparent, or is otherwise agreed by the parties, the proceeds of the bet are to be immediately paid to the winning party, less any escrow fees which are to be taken from the proceeds.

I appreciate if you'd respond relatively promptly.

DireWolfM14, would you kindly respond.

1. Will you refuse/ignore any submissions external to the original terms, as mandated by the original terms (i.e. will you uphold or disregard clause 6)?

2. Can you provide some guideance or ETA on your decision regarding the refund?

Hello nubcake_MeoW,

I'm reluctant to agree with you that the bet qualifies as a draw, at least not yet.  My reluctance is partly due to the fact clause #3 doesn't include a timeframe, and since the bet does not reach maturity until January 1^st, 2023.

Bet terms:

3. If Terra Classic governance alters the on-chain burn tax to be less than 0.9%, or removes it entirely, the bet is considered void and both parties are refunded less an equal contribution to the escrow fees.

It's also fair to point out that FatMan does not wish to enter the dispute phase based on this specific disagreement, and would prefer to let the bet continue.  I think it would be unfair to make a decision at this time with that being the case.

Bet terms:

6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider will determine the ‘winner’ on their sole discretion but must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision.

Yet another reason I'm of the opinion that it's best to let the bet run it's course is that the LUNC burn initiative seems to be in flux.  Initially it was set to 1.2%, before it was recently reduced.  I'm not convinced that we've seen the last adjustment, nor am I convinced that CEXs won't impose other methods to burn LUNC.  FatMan posted a message from CZ indicating that Binance might impose a voluntary option to allow LUNC users to burn at their discretion, and using those opt-in values to determine how to proceed.  I understand that since CZ's message was published Binance has chosen to burn their spot trading fee, and not impose any further tax on their clients who trade LUNC, but again I'm not convinced this won't change before the deadline.  I'm of the opinion that you still have a chance to win this bet, and calling it a draw might be as much a disservice to you as it would be to FatMan.

[FatManTerra]

Thanks for your input, DW. Some good points made that I didn't think of, such as the tax being in flux and the exchange burn very much still in play. I agree that resolution should only occur as stated (Jan 1 or off-chain tax implementation). Appreciate your time and sorry for the confusion.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

I really feel sorry for nubcake here.
Read all the posts, even read the published video of the discord chat.

1 escrow replies after 10 days and the other is offline for soon to be 1 week, not the best way to handle a situation.

Also, nub's arguments basically get ignored even though everything he says has a foundation. Rule 3 is in effect, rules 6 also gets violated here. Bad example how to not have a bet/escrow in this forum, especially for high amounts like this one.

"My reluctance is partly due to the fact clause #3 doesn't include a timeframe, and since the bet does not reach maturity until January 1st, 2023." is no argument in my eyes. When there is no timeframe then this mean obviously anytime.

When I make a bet, A vs B , and I lose I cant say, oh I meant the next game after that, we didn't say the time.

You 2 made the rules, maybe not specific enough, but you both agreed to them. And according to the rules as they stand and are written, nubcake is right. Interpretations of the rules don't matter, just whats in written down.

Fatman you also wrote that " the void clause referred to the burn tax in its proposal phase" , there is nothing about that in the rules you submitted, if you want to have this argument to be right you should have added that when you made these rules .
By the way, all these arguments by fatman why rule 3 should not count must be ignored since "6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider will determine the ‘winner’ on their sole discretion but must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision.". So no need to explain your opinion how the rules should be interpreted. It is only an attempt to influence or dictate the escrows decision making. The ONLY thing important is the agreement, not more and not less.

I think the community here should read about this as this is definitely going in the wrong direction.

[FatManTerra]

Interpretations of the rules don't matter, just whats in written down.

Interpreting a rule certainly matters. This is why there are constant debates over the letter of the law in court. The terms, as written, can be seen in more than one way, and require a neutral judge to adjudicate. I agree that the rules should be followed as is, but what "followed" precisely entails is in contention here.

Fatman you also wrote that " the void clause referred to the burn tax in its proposal phase" , there is nothing about that in the rules you submitted, if you want to have this argument to be right you should have added that when you made these rules .

As described in my arguments, this was clear from the time the bet was placed. The bet was placed while the burn tax was a governance proposal, and that's what it referred to. If the bet was placed after the burn tax had already been implemented, then your view would make sense, but it wasn't. I've also included evidence from our original discussion to back this up. It's a matter of interpretation but this point is pretty clear IMO.

So no need to explain your opinion how the rules should be interpreted. It is only an attempt to influence or dictate the escrows decision making. The ONLY thing important is the agreement, not more and not less.

Once again, I agree that only the agreement is important. Now, there was a clear, purpose-built conversation around the nature & spirit of the bet leading to the agreement being created. nubcake himself recorded this conversation, created a video file, and sent it to me for the avoidance of doubt. Why would such a file ever be necessary? Presumably, in the event of a dispute. Begging not to have this very context shared indicates to me that his refund request is in bad faith.

In courts, when there's a dispute over a civil contract, even though the agreement is confined to the realms of the contract alone, do we submit the agreement document to the judge and have them make a blind decision? No. Both parties argue their case, even though the contract exists, usually because there is ambiguity or contention that requires further explanation. A holistic decision is made - if the contract is valid, still on the basis of the contract - taking into account the terms, their implications, the genuine intent behind them, and a meeting of the minds. This is key for any genuine, good faith agreement.

DW is familiar with the burn tax subject matter from related prior arbitration and is a trusted, intelligent, valued member of the community. He understands full well what is going on here. Despite attempts from near-brand new astroturf accounts (or perhaps genuine people less educated on the subject, who knows) to sway the discussion, I am confident that a fair outcome will be reached.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

FT you really love to listen to yourself talking. So many big words, so small value. Must be hard to talk your way around the main facts just to prove your point.
If all those big facts you are presenting are so important, why arent they added in the rules ? How would DW or Zazarb know what you were talking about unless you now influenced them with your view of how it should be interpreted (which according to rule 6 should be ignored)? But of course now its too late to ignore that right? Smart move by yourself.

From the chat nub recorded he trusted you with finding escrow and now he has to pay for it. One guy in your pocket and the other MIA.

By the way, DW's reply sounds totally orchestrated by you. I have never seen him in any LUNC discussion in this board and suddenly he comes with all those technicalities, of course in your favour yet again.


Just keep bending the rules that are clear for everyone to see , this won't end well here. For someone that is constantly whining about crypto scammers on Twitter you are not much better I can see now.

[FatManTerra]

Not creating a more exhaustive set of terms to remove ambiguity was definitely an oversight. I assumed that I was entering a friendly gentleman's agreement in good faith. In hindsight, this was a mistake on my part.

nubcake and I both agreed on the escrow providers involved. I was ready to use zazarb for both of the coins, but nubcake himself suggested choosing someone else to spread out risk. Out of several potential options we went with DW. The whole time, I was completely apathetic about who to use as long as they were fairly trusted on the forum. I believe that any neutral & reasonable person would find the same outcomes when presented with this set of decisions.

Suggesting that I bribed this neutral party that we both agreed on who is, again, highly trusted on Bitcoin Talk, is inappropriate & conspiracy talk. No one was bribed. There have been no secret payments or promises to anyone. Alleging that both DW and I are untrustworthy and that we secretly conspired, just to further your view/agenda, is a step too far.

If you're a nubcake alt, then, like I explained on Telegram, even unreasonable people can be adamant and may truly believe in their position, which is why a neutral party is necessary for determination of the truth. In any case, this crazy talk about people being "in my pocket" does a disservice to everyone involved and comes off as bad faith trolling.

[LoyceV]

Not creating a more exhaustive set of terms to remove ambiguity was definitely an oversight. I assumed that I was entering a friendly gentleman's agreement in good faith. In hindsight, this was a mistake on my part.

I like strict rules, because it avoids discussion later on. But I also know it's difficult to include all possible scenarios up-front.

I know basically nothing about "Terra", and everything I know about the burn tax is from this bet. I have a tentative opinion based on what I read in this topic, but I don't want to influence DireWolfM14 unless he asks for it.

[DireWolfM14]

I have a tentative opinion based on what I read in this topic, but I don't want to influence DireWolfM14 unless he asks for it.

I would be very appreciative of your input.  You're one of the most rational and unbiased individuals on this forum.  I was hoping I wouldn't have to ask (I didn't want to impose on your time,) but since things have gotten so messy I was actually planning to reach out.  Thank you for offering.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

Not creating a more exhaustive set of terms to remove ambiguity was definitely an oversight. I assumed that I was entering a friendly gentleman's agreement in good faith. In hindsight, this was a mistake on my part.

nubcake and I both agreed on the escrow providers involved. I was ready to use zazarb for both of the coins, but nubcake himself suggested choosing someone else to spread out risk. Out of several potential options we went with DW. The whole time, I was completely apathetic about who to use as long as they were fairly trusted on the forum. I believe that any neutral & reasonable person would find the same outcomes when presented with this set of decisions.

Suggesting that I bribed this neutral party that we both agreed on who is, again, highly trusted on Bitcoin Talk, is inappropriate & conspiracy talk. No one was bribed. There have been no secret payments or promises to anyone. Alleging that both DW and I are untrustworthy and that we secretly conspired, just to further your view/agenda, is a step too far.

If you're a nubcake alt, then, like I explained on Telegram, even unreasonable people can be adamant and may truly believe in their position, which is why a neutral party is necessary for determination of the truth. In any case, this crazy talk about people being "in my pocket" does a disservice to everyone involved and comes off as bad faith trolling.

"Noobcake alt" . You say it yourself that I dont know enough about lunc and so on so it should be obvious I am not him. I am just an interested reader that doesn't like what he is seeing here going down, that's all.

And like I said before in my opinion more people should see this bet and give their opinion because stating the rules publically for everyone to see only matter if actually everybody can see them. The rules have no room for interpretation.

Starting with listening what LoyceV thinks is a great idea!

[FatManTerra]

The bet was posted here for record-keeping purposes and so that the escrow system could work properly. It's certainly not a free-for-all match. I, too, could rally plenty of people on my side, some with long histories of trust on this platform, but that would obviously be inappropriate. The two of us signed up for a decision from DW and that is what we expect. Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree that rules should be strict and coherent. I tried to add some more details and clarity to the terms myself. But I did not imagine refund requests would be made in bad faith, so the bet wording was fairly casual, in parts ambiguous, and non-exhaustive. If I had a do-over I would probably have made the terms one or two pages to protect against exploitation (or miscommunication). That being said, the contextual evidence from our discussion IMO sufficiently proves the real intent here, coupled with the timing as mentioned. I also agree with the spirit-related arguments DW made later that I hadn't considered.

The internal (real) odds of the off-chain burn tax being implemented have, in fact, increased, not decreased (exchanges are far more likely to implement a 0.2% tax compared to a 1.2% tax). The only reason nubcake is seeking a refund early is because the external (perceived) odds (in his estimation) have changed given CZ's statement (and time elapsed). This entire situation is an attempt to back out of a fair wager because he realizes his odds aren't as good as he initially thought, which is not at all a fair way to place the bet.

He himself knows this, as he referred to voiding the bet as "welching" four times. Money > morals, I suppose. I am not enjoying this but at least we're in good hands.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

The bet was posted here for record-keeping purposes and so that the escrow system could work properly. It's certainly not a free-for-all match. I, too, could rally plenty of people on my side, some with long histories of trust on this platform, but that would obviously be inappropriate. The two of us signed up for a decision from DW and that is what we expect. Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree that rules should be strict and coherent. I tried to add some more details and clarity to the terms myself. But I did not imagine refund requests would be made in bad faith, so the bet wording was fairly casual, in parts ambiguous, and non-exhaustive. If I had a do-over I would probably have made the terms one or two pages to protect against exploitation (or miscommunication). That being said, the contextual evidence from our discussion IMO sufficiently proves the real intent here, coupled with the timing as mentioned. I also agree with the spirit-related arguments DW made later that I hadn't considered.

The internal (real) odds of the off-chain burn tax being implemented have, in fact, increased, not decreased (exchanges are far more likely to implement a 0.2% tax compared to a 1.2% tax). The only reason nubcake is seeking a refund early is because the external (perceived) odds (in his estimation) have changed given CZ's statement (and time elapsed). This entire situation is an attempt to back out of a fair wager because he realizes his odds aren't as good as he initially thought, which is not at all a fair way to place the bet.

He himself knows this, as he referred to voiding the bet as "welching" four times. Money > morals, I suppose. I am not enjoying this but at least we're in good hands.

OK, but still you have to understand something.
"6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider will determine the ‘winner’ on their sole discretion but must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision."

If I was the escrow person like zazarb ( he admitted this himself he doesnt really understand the bet ) and have no clue what this bet is about. I see the terms, I see the implementation of the 0.2% tax burn from 10 days ago, and its a void because of rule no 3. Because further explanation from you has to be ignored according to term 6. Now that you stated countless facts to support your claim his opinion is getting shaped/changed and he can't ignore it. 

He wrote himself "in my opinion, the third clause of the contract has taken place" , then you wrote :
I would highly recommend the reviewal of formal arguments through an arbitration process before coming to a final verdict, as I think the context makes it clear that the void clause referred to the burn tax in its proposal phase, not after it had already been activated.

The escrow provider will determine the ‘winner’ on their sole discretion but must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision.

You tried to change his mind by ADDING/ADVISING additional information even though sole discretion but and this agreement as the sole basis for their decision.

You understand why I think thats not ok? Nub only provided the news of the 0.2% tax burn and referred to the agreement, you added and added and tried to change a deciding persons mind even though thats 100% against rule 6. Nub acted by and stated the rules, you violate them. Thats my whole problem with this messy situation.

[FatManTerra]

The agreement will always be the sole deciding factor. External data is necessary to parse exactly what the agreement entails. Is linking to the burn tax reduction proposal also violating the rules? It's external info after all. No, it doesn't work that way. External context that's necessary or useful to explain what the terms mean or entail is perfectly fine. As stated, nubcake is the one who recorded and saved this context in the first place. Asking that saved context not to be reviewed is obviously disingenuous, at least to me. Additional rules are not being added. Rule changes are not being requested. The original agreement must be enforced. It's just a matter of what - precisely - the original agreement entails.

Yes, you're right in that zazarb does not have much knowledge of the LUNC situation. DW does. To anyone familiar with the situation, the context of that term is clear. To anyone not familiar, reading the arguments/evidence provided should be sufficient to determine how the term should be followed. You need to draw a distinction between adding context/information for guidance necessary to follow the original agreement and adding new terms. Only the former is happening here, not the latter.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

The agreement will always be the sole deciding factor. External data is necessary to parse exactly what the agreement entails. Is linking to the burn tax reduction proposal also violating the rules? It's external info after all. No, it doesn't work that way. External context that's necessary or useful to explain what the terms mean or entail is perfectly fine. As stated, nubcake is the one who recorded and saved this context in the first place. Asking that saved context not to be reviewed is obviously disingenuous, at least to me. Additional rules are not being added. Rule changes are not being requested. The original agreement must be enforced. It's just a matter of what - precisely - the original agreement entails.

Yes, you're right in that zazarb does not have much knowledge of the LUNC situation. DW does. To anyone familiar with the situation, the context of that term is clear. To anyone not familiar, reading the arguments/evidence provided should be sufficient to determine how the term should be followed. You need to draw a distinction between adding context/information for guidance necessary to follow the original agreement and adding new terms. Only the former is happening here, not the latter.

"Is linking to the burn tax reduction proposal also violating the rules?" is a stupid question. Of course news , if they are deciding a term of the bet, must be added.

That is not what you do.

Zazarb made a statement based on his SOLE DISCRETION and according to the agreement. You tried to change his mind which is a clear violation . I dont know if it's just ignorance from your side or what.

As far as I saw in the chat video, he saved it also to show that you both made the agreement and decided for a escrow here (which I bet he already hates himself for) . So that nobody can back out especially.

But since you don't see any problem in influencing the deciding people this whole bet is becoming a farce. Everything you do is right according to you, I see that on Twitter as well.