P3: 
So as you know, so I started from the idea also kind of like for positive things, not to look for fraud, but to say it's about sharing space because space is so valuable. 
And so who am I to have the right to have private space when it's empty? So if you can share it, otherwise it's beautiful. 
So, but then, so you have to do this contextual analysis if that private person kind of fits kind of the, what is the conditions we say that we think it's really kind of valuable that that person is kind of like sharing his or her space. 
And then if yes, we're going to help that person to find the perfect tenant. 
And based on, so what I told you previously about this idea of social capital that you want to meet, you want to meet people that you would never have met before. 
So you want to kind of mix people that were never mixed before because that's really good for society. 
And then if this is feedback loop, I really loved it how you said it. 
That maybe the money that comes out of this could be shared in some way, whatever. 
Okay, so that's the positive side. 
And then the negative side is to avoid that people make misuse of sharing space and make it a business because that's what you don't want. 
That's opposite the whole idea. 
And then you have, of course, from here, so from this contextual analysis, you can also say, okay, that's not the person we want to start kind of renting out space. 
So there's going to be, let's say it's the fraud assessment that's coming in here. 
But then I still make, I think it's really important. 
So you have to make, if you do the fraud assessment, you have to make it a relative assessment. 
Is it big or small. 
I think often kind of these systems, they don't make a difference between big and small. 
And then we kind of take people into the system that only did kind of like a small little fix. 
So if it's small, it goes back here, you can start all over again. 
Only when you do it a thousand times, then of course that system kind of understands that you fuck up the system because you deliberately make small mistakes. 
But if it's big, then of course this whole thing comes in like, okay, you immediately have to go back to that person. 
So that's the openness of it. 
So the assessment here, you have to, and if you make the check, and that's exactly what [name] did, so there has to be kind of a defense. 
So you have to defend what's going on. 
And then you can also kind of understand, was it a deliberate thing or was it just a mistake? If it's a mistake, you can go just back here into the system. 
If it's deliberate, you go back here. 
And then instead kind of immediately fining, I thought it would be really nice that maybe in previous times she did really well on this side and then you once kind of thought, okay, fuck the system, I'm going to do it. 
So depending on the number of kind of deliberate kind of like, what is it, intentions you had, you just balance out what you kind of gained on the positive side against kind of the wins for yourself on the negative side. 
So the first time you do it, it's still kind of like, it's kind of making that valid judgment based on also how much you brought in here. 
So if you really did well for 15 years, then that counts, it matters. 
So doing good is like being valued. 
So that's the whole idea. 
So it's more like, I think, more related to justice or justice or how can you make it a system. 
But the defense also that [name] came up with, and I really liked what you said about kind of redistributing capital in doing things like this. 
That would be very interesting.