Patrick Fleury: Yeah, so, hey, Bill, it’s Patrick. So, yeah, look, and again, I think Paul kind of alluded to it in the prior question and I don’t want to pick on any of my peers but I think, we all come from, personally, I come from a 20-plus year institutional investor background, right? And so, I think Paul mentioned geographic diversity, right? When I think of commodity companies that I invested in no one, not one company not one company that I ever invested in, has all of their assets in one region, right? And that’s for regulatory reasons, pricing reasons, you have to have diverse geographic diversity and so your point, I think, is a very good one, where what we see as the best strategy, and look, we may go to Texas, ultimately, and we may go to other regions, I think, you won’t see us in regions of the world where there’s not a definitive rule of law, and there’s regime change all the time, we won’t go to those regions, regardless of how cheap the power is.
So I think, we kind of have found between the sort of 50 megawatts to 300-ish megawatts. It’s kind of the right size to where, you don’t have a bullseye on your back, because you’re getting tens of millions of dollars in demand response curtailment revenues, you’re not enough, really to push the grid one way or the other. That’s kind of the sweet spot, as we all know when you become really big, and are having a big impact on the grid, that becomes politically untenable, particularly if it’s not zero carbon, and you’re utilizing fossil fuels. So those are the things that we will be very mindful of, Bill, as we look to expand beyond our sites, which is, I think, a very natural, ultimate place to go for the company, but I don’t think we’ll do that, certainly pre having, I think we’ll kind of wait, see, pick up the pieces, I think there’ll be a lot of carnage on the other side.
Paul Prager: Yeah, and I would also add to that, but again, it’s got to be consistent with their thesis, which is zero carbon mining and you got to manage the risk, or the opportunity, if you will, of geographic diversity with the knowledge of 10 years to 15 years experience in a particular site, or region. So, it all goes into our evaluation. But I think, going into the having, we’re very comfortable with the sites we have. We have plenty of room to grow on them at really low cost pricing and we’re scaling not just on the energy side, and on the infrastructure side, but on our people side, and their experience in building out these facilities. So, I think that’s what you’ll see from us through the halving.
Bill Papanastasiou: Thank you, I appreciate the detailed responses and congrats again on the impressive margins this quarter.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Mateo Lev [ph] with Parabolic Ventures Holding. Please go ahead.
UnidentifiedAnalyst: Good morning, guys, and congratulations on your scale and growth this quarter. Had a question for you, would you mind opining on the key differences between what a HODL versus no HODL revenue model is in your sector as it relates to enhancing shareholder value?
Paul Prager: Sure, Mateo. This is Paul. I want to be thoughtful in response. As an individual investor, right, who believes in Bitcoin, I think you could buy it, put it in your wallet, you could buy into an ETF, you could buy, Mike Sellers [ph] stock, you could buy into a fund where their business is all about holding Bitcoin. But I am Chairman and CEO of an operating company, and the business of Wulf is to mine Bitcoin, and we’re supposed to mine it at a profit. And I think, unfortunately, this is lost on some of the other public miners, who, again, they see themselves as either investment managers, maybe they don’t know how to operate, or maybe they’re pioneering wizards of AI and high tech. It’s not what we do. We are an operating company.
