Jason Robins: Yes, it’s a great question. And I think that there are — you noted one. I think, certainly, the opportunity for tax revenue, and should states find themselves more in need of that, that could have an effect. I also think that as an industry, we need to do a better job getting the story out there. There’s a lot of great work that’s been done by the EGA and other groups to really put the data out there about just how significant and large the illegal sports betting market is. And I think that’s been a big driver of policymakers saying, “Look, we got to do something here.” I don’t think there’s been nearly as much coverage of the illegal iGaming market, even though it exists. I mean if you go to pretty much any of the mobile sportsbooks and online sports books that you see overseas that are operating illegally, they — almost all of them have an online casino.
It’s just not talked about as much. I think inherently, it’s a less social product. People talk about it less. And then like I said, the industry probably just hasn’t focused as much as we could have on really making that data clear. So I think it’s a combination of those two things of states that see the tax opportunity and realize that there’s a real way to take something that’s happening already, just like sports betting is in the illegal market and bring it into the light and protect consumers and also generate revenue for the state.
Operator: Thank you. And our next question comes from Robin Farley with UBS. Your line is open.
Robin Farley: I wonder, if you could give us a little bit of color on your guidance for states that are contribution positive? It was 11 states getting to $105 million last year. For the $500 million this year, how many states will that be to generate that $500 million? And is it still — at one point, you talked about a three-year payback period for when a new state legalizes until it’s profitable. Is that faster now, given the ramp-up in Arizona? What would you say that time line is? And then last, little clarification. You talked about the percent of population that your long-term guidance is 7% to 9% of new OSB every year. It’s fair to say, though, right, that your ’23 and ’24 guidance, doesn’t rely on your ’24 guidance, doesn’t rely on any states that haven’t already actually legalized just not operational yet, right? In other words, no new legislation needs to happen for that to be hit?
Jason Robins: That last point is correct. The only state that’s not even live yet that we did assume in the guidance is Massachusetts. And the reason is it’s pretty far down the line. So we felt it was more helpful to investors to get a view with Massachusetts included. But we have not assumed any other state launches from new legalization that happens this year. As far as — I’m going to try to remember that. I think the first one, on a sort of state-by-state basis, we have not disclosed which states are contribution profit positive for ’23 yet. We plan on covering that in more detail at our Investor Day later this year. So, we will be providing additional disclosure and data on that. We had to save something for that to keep — to get you to show up, Robin. And then on — I’m sorry, what was your second question? Oh speed and inflection.
Robin Farley: Oh just the speed.
