To be clear, my post about Ethereum falling behind in DC was meant in no way as a critique of @Consensys, which has done and continues to do excellent work, or any other company bearing the torch for Ethereum. I also don't mean to suggest that Ethereum should be advocating for a regulatory moat in favor of ETH and at the expense of any other asset or chain. That is bad behavior that all of crypto should firmly reject. This is not a zero sum game. We're all in it together, and a rising tide lifts all boats. My point is that @BillHughesDC, who is among the best of the best in DC, shouldn't have to do triple duty in advocating for all of Ethereum, ETH, and his business. Nor should Consensys have to expend resources on all that work. The same goes for the many other amazing Ethereum-aligned companies active in DC right now. In other chain ecosystems, operating companies can focus their advocacy efforts on advancing good policy related to the products and services that matter most to their business. They can do that because of the support of a foundation or development company taking the pressure off by focusing solely and exclusively on the underlying chain and native asset. I see no good reason why Ethereum should be different from those other chains. I agree completely with Bill that this is a team effort. I just think the team would do better with a highly visible, narrowly focused, considerably resources organization spending all day, every day advancing Ethereum's priorities in DC.