Yes, very good points. I think you very much get the concept of what and how but maybe are less certain of why. I think emerging markets need to demonstrate utility in the face of honest skepticism. It's not useful to have a product intended for global adoption to be falsely coddled into a sense of motherly-like utility which will prove untenable at larger scale, and so I think skepticism is an overlooked source of utility when determining use-cases for a new product. As good as it may feel at the time, being told what one wants to hear can harbor long-term consequences. That being said, although the market will mostly be set in terms of the cost per hash by the (for now) larger market of those hashes otherwise being directed toward the main network, at the same time, an entirely spontaneous market can emerge vis a vis the relationship between spent energy and and the representation which that energy has on the accessibility of content. No one knows what that market looks like today because the service is too new. Lastly, I don't think your questions, especially your last one, is or are invalid. I think they are normal questions, and I don't think they can nor should be explained away. You're raising totally fair and valid questions. I see the function more as a cost-benefit relationship. I think sometimes we unnecessarily assume that for something to be useful or important, it needs to be the best in its class. But sometimes a product or feature gets unnecessarily lumped into a class to which it doesn't truly belong. And when it is compared against its "peers" it may have distinct disadvantages or comparative holes in its functionality. I think this is often a process of our need to hyper-contextualize and continually cross-analyze. Yes it is helpful to continually be comparing, but there is also a specific advantage that comes from not defining one's utility by one's comparison to a class of lesser candidates, and instead focusing on the specific functionality that is unique to its own example. I also want to be clear that by advocating for the importance of BoostPow, I'm not making a should-claim in so far as saying that you should have my opinion about BoostPow or that people who don't are wrong. But I think Daniel feels strongly, and this in part weighs into my views, that only by being free to be ourselves are we truly able to serve each other. I think he strongly believes that BoostPow is a way to bet on oneself in a way that signals to others the virulence of that belief, and I just think that ultimately can only be a good thing. <3