Tieleman: there, my name is Cijbrand, Cijbrand Tielman. I'm co-founder, CEO of a company called Proba, ⁓ out of Amsterdam. Nice to meet you.

Alex Shandrovsky: ⁓ and congratulations, you recently raised some cash.

Tieleman: Yes, yes, we did raise actually some money a month ago euros, 1.25 million ⁓ so almost 1.5 in today's ⁓ exchange rate dollars.

Alex Shandrovsky: ⁓ think that's the thing. When the dollar gets weaker, it's like immediately you raise money. ⁓ congratulations. Hopefully that dollar doesn't fall too low because that's how I get paid in dollars. So I feel that pain quite a lot.

Tieleman: Yeah, we get more we get more money in dollars, so that's good US dollars it is. It would even be better I think in Canadian.

Alex Shandrovsky: It's absolutely. But this podcast is going to have another conversation, which is about your successful fundraise. And how did you meet your lead investor in this round?

Tieleman: Yeah, that's a good lead investor. investor was actually I met the company, it's called Future Food Fund, if they are the lead investor. I met them helping to raise some capital for another startup like four years ago. So that's the first meeting or exchange I had with the venture capital company that has been leading the route. ⁓

Alex Shandrovsky: Amazing. And then when you were thinking about raising the cash for Proba, did you have like a list that you built? Okay, these could be the right partners for us. And then you reached out to those. How did you think about going back to the fund?

Tieleman: Yeah, so this is our, yeah, you could say it's somewhat of an extension round or like a second round with the similar, the same investors that were already on our cap table. So I assume you wanna know about, well, maybe the round before this, how we met then and what kind of the selection process was there. ⁓ basically, I think we didn't have to, ⁓ have a lot of, well. ⁓ choice to be honest. We had one ⁓ already on the cap table and basically we needed more ⁓ so we reached out to tens, I think maybe ⁓ 100. venture capital funds and there were a few who kind of answered the phone or responded to an email, one of which basically led around, there was a company that I was in touch with already before Proba, so my company was in existence. So was like an old contact who was interested in, I would say, the proposition. And from a fit point of view, they were in in the Agri food business. So they are, I would say, specialized in investing in Agri food-related startups. So they kind of understand that, I would say, the dynamics in the Agri food business are a bit different than, for instance, in SaaS or artificial intelligence, some, I would say, different with different dynamics. So they kind of know the business.

Alex Shandrovsky: So strategically, they knew the sales cycle as well, also the type of opportunity for how much market you can grab with your SaaS solution.

Tieleman: They had a sense and of course they had some, some, would say, yeah, they have this, well, analysts sitting in their team. And course they also have been looking at the problem that we helped to solve. don't want, I don't know, I'm not sure if you want to go into that part, but basically ⁓ there's of, I would say, ⁓ greenhouse emissions in the agri-food industries, which we helped to kind of reduce. And ⁓ so also made the same analysis that solutions that we provide could help there. So in that sense it kind of fits with their, well some of their theories how startups could be ⁓ successful ⁓ in this

Alex Shandrovsky: So I'm thinking about just being on the investment side and I'm wondering, Kate, a young startup for vertical. How did you make the, how did you yourself in the due diligence process where they sell, this is a company I want to bet on because I've seen that there other competitors who are trying to position themselves as well in the missions gauging and also potentially creating marketplaces and reselling credits. So what was the thing that you had to convince them about your company that said like this is a worthwhile investment?

Tieleman: Yeah, think honestly, that's also a bit of the journey of the company and for me personally, mean, in the end, we kind of choose in a vertical within a vertical. So being super specific around, I would say a set of or some emissions that are. existing in the agrifood industry, so we specialize in fertilizer-related emissions. I don't think there's any company in the right now who has this sole focus around, I would say, emissions that are related to fertilizers, and I think that's what kind of was attractive to them, okay? It's kind of super specialized, there's nobody else out there who's kind of tackling the same problem. It's a big market, although... it's maybe not so obvious, it's still a big market. So it seems like, I would say, it could be a good opportunity to kind of invest in and see if we can make a return there.

Alex Shandrovsky: Okay, great. So absolutely love this. So you're hyper virtualized, like very, very deep in this use case. And the assumption is we're just going to master the one use case. And even the bigger players, for them, might not even be looking at the specific use case. We'll just master it. And it's funny, I used to sell very expensive SaaS in my previous life. And I think I've repented from that.

Tieleman: Yeah. Yeah. Thank Yeah.

Alex Shandrovsky: But was in the last of my logistics coordination that I was selling. It looking at different use cases. I found out that there is actually specific solutions only for laundry mats.

Tieleman: I say, the more opportunity you give to yourself to become successful, that I think is kind of a... lesson that I maybe learned also as an entrepreneur, just make it super small and then extend from there. And you don't have a lot of capital, so you cannot also cover, I would say, lots of big markets where there's competition. So basically you want to position yourself in a way that there's no competition. if somebody wants to solve the problem, they more or less need to come to you. That's kind of how we try to do it. So you have to become super specific. I'm not sure if you want to know, but We are global world dominators in making sure that our customers or participants in the supply chain know what the emission effect is of certain inhibitor technologies when farmers are using fertilizers on a specific soil type in Brazil. so then we know what this means for emissions, and that's really specific scientific knowledge that we kind of collected.

Alex Shandrovsky: Okay, so I want our listeners to just pause for a second and listen how brilliant this is, because this is actually tremendous gold. Can you say that one more time? just because our listeners, you are the world leaders in, go ahead and be very specific about this use case. For our listeners, I don't need you to understand the science. That's not the goal of this podcast at all, but I want you to hear how he's... describe themselves, I will own 100 % or the majority leader of this one use case and that's how I'm going to build my business. So go over that one use case one more time.

Tieleman: Basically, we're the global leaders in being able to quantify what the emissions effect is of a very specific fertilizer technology called nitrification inhibitor. When this nitrification inhibitor is being applied next to a fertilizer in Brazil around coffee, when it's grown in the Minas-Greis region.

Alex Shandrovsky: Okay, so.

Tieleman: And nobody knows, us, what the emissions effect is of applying this technology and how much greenhouse gas emissions are basically being reduced when farmers are using this technology.

Alex Shandrovsky: Okay, so thank you. This is a massive gift you've given to our listeners, right? Because this is like, you could have gone probably picked a lot of different use cases, correct? When you were starting to build a company, were there a lot of use cases that you thought about targeting?

Tieleman: We tried many, we tried many. So basically we were all over the place when starting and basically we didn't really know what the market was. So we also kind of, well basically pivoted and iterated ourselves into a market that kind of found us and we found the market then afterwards. it's also a bit of, I would say a look on opportunity colliding at some point in time that we actually was not like a that we well created beforehand and then ⁓ executed on. It's to find a market ⁓ helping companies to reduce emissions in their supply chains. we ⁓ basically ⁓ into issue of, it's called in-field emissions when farmers are growing crops around the globe ⁓ and that can reduce these emissions. ⁓ And is market that we are into now. ⁓

Alex Shandrovsky: So gonna we're gonna just dive a little bit deeper in this because this is actually ⁓ exciting ⁓ ⁓ excited about this. So let's nerd down this for one second

Tieleman: But we also tried steel and cement and other industries. we basically, we were all over the place, but in the end we are now this.

Alex Shandrovsky: is your moat? ⁓ is your protective moat that ⁓ you the leader? ⁓ can't somebody else listen to this podcast and say, yeah, I'm going to be the leader in this use case. What is going to make them so hard to be able to catch up to you?

Tieleman: I think it's... Yeah, I it's a bit of process knowledge. ⁓ knowing what supply chain needs in order to credibly do this, because that's kind of what the actual... business need is to kind of show to stakeholders, shareholders, investors, consumers that are ⁓ the intensity of your business across your whole So it's about the ⁓ actual operation, also in your supply chain. So that's the need. Show to the world that you're improving from an emissions point of view. there's a lot process knowledge there that you basically build along the way. during the years, that's basically experience. that creates a mode because you cannot do it from day one. I think the other mode is really the knowledge about the technologies. And in our case, we call it enhanced efficiency fertilizers. again, chemical fertilizers, mineral fertilizers, there's lots of emissions there. 5 % of global greenhouse gas emissions are related directly or indirectly to fertilizers. So it's like 1 20th of all the emissions that go out there are directly related to fertilizers. And there's technologies out there very specific technologies, it's called enhanced efficiency fertilizers, and these technologies are then even more specific, called inhibitors, ⁓ inhibitors or URIs inhibitors, and the effects of these inhibitors for the emissions are very specific to the context of where these inhibitors are being used. building this basically database of what the emissions effect is of these specific technologies in very specific economic context is our mode because well, it takes a long time to kind of collect this data, collect the science, interpret it to science and basically be able to kind of these data points or we call it emission factors in a way that is practical and ⁓ and doable and understandable by all the suppliers. buy chain stakeholders. So I invite everybody to kind of join our market, there's a lot to learn there before you know what you're actually talking about.

Alex Shandrovsky: I can definitely attest to that because I lost you probably five words in ⁓ that's exactly the point here. Now you're the expert. Like, ⁓ don't know what's going on. Here's take my money. Now, my to you is how large is the market opportunity if you just become the leader in that market opportunity? What is the size of that business?

Tieleman: Yep. Yeah, I think it's very, very difficult. I investors did ask for the total addressable market. what is your TAM? It's a typical question that you get ⁓ investors. So ⁓ and be honest, we did try to calculate this, but also at the moment ⁓ we ⁓ I I think, an intern ⁓ to it like a TAM analysis for us. The day after ⁓ that came up with a number, I forgot it. ⁓ So also stopped. communicating about it. to put it into perspective, the fertilizer industry is 200 billion annual industry, so that's a big market. And food industry, like Pepsi, Nestle, McDonald's, mean, Walmart's. It's huge. just, I would say, looking at the players ⁓ it's a very big market. then how then it depends how much there is a willingness to invest or pay for these improvements ⁓ across industries to actually, ⁓ basically us money to help them with it. I think too young to kind of say, okay, well, ⁓ the market like one, two, three, four, 10 billion annually. And we're going to take 20%, 30 % of this market because we are the global market leader in this business case. I think it's still too early to tell.

Alex Shandrovsky: Okay, I understand. So the TAM is still needs to be figured out, but the specific use case was juicy enough, there's enough meat in the bone for the investors to participate.

Tieleman: Yeah, so mean, again, we are in the sustainability business or in the emissions business in the end. And if you look at total greenhouse gas emissions, I think it's 40, 40, it's ⁓ gigawatts, no giga, sorry, giga, ⁓ ⁓ emissions. ⁓ per year that are being emitted by all the industries and fertilizers do like 5%. So that's like five times four. Yeah, it's like two and a half gigatons per year on an annual basis that get emitted in the industries that we tackle at the moment. And then some people say, it's costing like 50 to $100 per ton to get these emissions out. there. a way of quantifying, what the TEM could be. And our service fee, because we not, I would say we are part of this 50 to 100 dollars per ton, our service fee is maybe 5, 10 percent to get these out. So that will be our TEM. But that's only in the fertilizer agri-food industry.

Alex Shandrovsky: Gotcha.

Tieleman: Of course, I told my investors when we first met them, don't worry, we're going to attack other industries and verticals and we're going to be this total unicorn. course, we still ⁓ to prove that. ⁓ that's more their hope than my hope, to be honest.

Alex Shandrovsky: Well, those listeners who are not from the Netherlands, you should just know that while the Americans love to pound themselves the chest and say they are the greatest on earth, the Netherlands ⁓ and the will always find them to be like, we're OK. So ⁓ whatever. ⁓ Our guest currently is telling you, you should just multiply by five if you're an American in terms of their competence. Because culturally, found that the Netherlands are very direct in the way they speak and very unassuming until if you see what they've done with greenhouses in general, you realize they slowly just take over the entire market. So this is

Tieleman: Yeah, probably 80 % of all the greenhouses have some Dutch in there, right? ⁓

Alex Shandrovsky: an understated powerhouse that would just slowly take over you without you noticing. why did ⁓ sounds like you had more of was this a bridge round or was it ⁓

Tieleman: Yeah, we call it an extension round. So the honest... The is that I think we were pretty confident in this round that our existing investors would pitch in again and basically extend their investment than a year ago. So we kind of agreed back then, okay, it's going to be like a more, okay, it's first version and then we extend one year later. But think we would have preferred to have, I would say, one more investor, ⁓ investors on the cap table also in this round, we kind of, yeah, mean, I think we took a of an implicit decision to say, okay, we can go out there to the capital market and basically spend a lot of time ⁓ finding new investor without, I would say, guarantee on success or we spent a bit less time together with the existing investors and basically have more time to spend in the actual business instead of finding capital. that's kind of, and if somebody would join and we were close to ⁓ another investors also joining but we said, okay, well, it's too much hassle. Let's close this round now, focus on the business. There's some momentum there. So let's. would say build on that and then ⁓ open, I would say the cap table again maybe in a year from now with like a real new around with other investors as well.

Alex Shandrovsky: What did you feel was the biggest objection that you were facing this extension? What made you concerned about going to the capital markets and being certain that if we go to the capital markets today, I might have to spend the next eight months instead of building the business, I'm going to have to go and fund these the next eight months, which potentially could kill the business because I need to be building a business. So what was the objection you felt?

Tieleman: No, no, it's a good question. Yeah, and it's pretty easy. we had, we actually had quite a few, not too many conversations with potential new investors. But of course, I say the biggest, I'm not. So our business model is, I would say, challenging. of course, everybody's looking for like recurring revenues. So ARR, so everybody wants that. So we have revenue, but the recurring part of it is still kind of, well, it's okay, but could be better. And if you talk to new investors, they just wanna make sure that you have this milestone or are at least sure about the certain level of recurring revenues because you before you become eligible for them to invest in. ⁓ ⁓ and they're pretty strict on these thresholds usually. And in agriculture, I think, yeah, the story is more of... compounding. you build on top of what is there and you kind of build, I would say steady but a little bit more slowly than ⁓ of the AI rocket ships. So you kind of also need to believe or understand that, I would say, ⁓ building business in agriculture has a bit of a different speed, probably ⁓ because the, I would say, nature of agriculture that things need to grow in a physical world and they grow in one growing season. building business in agriculture has a bit of a different speed, probably ⁓ because of the, I would say, nature of agriculture that things need to in a physical world and they grow in one growing season. And you can only so much in one year that think the normal SaaS investors who are to kind of stuff And you can only so much in one year that think the normal SaaS investors ⁓ who used to kind of stuff and AR levels are not yet. ⁓ AR levels are not yet.

Alex Shandrovsky: Yeah, I this is a key reality that I've been seeing and I see this, ⁓ the other that are trying to put AR metrics on their software business and agriculture, forgetting that you're talking about seasons. And you can talk about land and expand model, I'm going to take 2 % of your farm today and then If I succeed next growing season, I'm going to spend out a 10 and a 15. But this notion of a monthly ARR similar to an model. No, I don't think that's going to happen for you.

Tieleman: And yeah. that's also something that we learned. Yeah, ⁓ it doesn't really make sense also to spend a lot of capital, ⁓ would say growing quicker a market which still kind of develops. ⁓

Alex Shandrovsky: Well, one thing that is really interesting and this just came up in a call I had yesterday with an investor and they said, look, one of our portfolio companies just called us and they said they have six weeks left. Six weeks and we're done. Six weeks, right? I was like, oh, that's interesting. So they just called you and told you six weeks is left and then they said, hey, can you extend us, extend the runway? one of the things that

Tieleman: It takes weeks. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Alex Shandrovsky: I'm hearing from you is that you have pretty clear communication with your investors where you're like, look, when you put in the cash in January of 25, you should just know that we're thinking in December of 25, we're going to have another conversation. And let's be real about it's very likely that you're to need to do an extension here. When did you have that conversation? did that make you, know, did that, did you get pushback from the investors saying, a second, why are you putting on us the pressure of having to raise your next round? You know, you're the CEO, go out and raise cash. A lot of people don't want to have that conversation with investors because they feel like, wait, you know, they're going to think I'm not capable of CEO that can't raise more money.

Tieleman: Yeah. How about it? No. That's good one. to be honest, some of, would say most of this credit maybe also goes to my co-founder, who's really, I would say, I'm definitely not the only one who's raising the capital. he's definitely helping there and also with, I would say having these kinds of conversations. But I think, to honest, I mean, the last round, ⁓ so 25 round, I think actually closed in December 24, or maybe also January 25. But anyway, like a bit more than a year ago, and I think two months after the, round, we were having the conversation say, well, well, rest assured, we're gonna need more capital. Basically, already during the closing of the round, we already had, I would say, this conversation with the existing investors, okay, thank you for the money, but we are going, yeah, we're coming for more in a few months. And I think that the real conversation started really soon after closing the initial round, really soon. So two, three months after closing and then before the summer, we had like real conversations going on when saying, okay, how are we gonna do this? How much do we want? Who's gonna pitch in which capital? do we want this to be closed? So was, yeah, part of our, I would say, yeah. ⁓ monthly maybe conversation that we had with the investors to make sure that they really understand, yeah, we need the capital and maybe we can find another investors, but probably not because we're not gonna spend too much time on it. Otherwise we're not building the business. So it's kind of ⁓ a positive case, outlier case if we're successful getting, I would say more interest, but otherwise, yeah, make sure that we get at least enough capital. sure that we can keep focusing on the business.

Alex Shandrovsky: Take us into that room though, cause you know, look. my gosh, they just asked me money. I just gave him money. And now he's coming back again, a month later asking for money. Like we ⁓ hap-

Tieleman: Yeah, but it was, I would say, part of the, I would say initial deal where I said, okay, well, let's use this round, so the first round to kind of, as maybe a bit of a, I'm not saying experiment, but let's keep the risk a bit, mitigate the risk a bit. that it's not a good, that we're investing in a stupid company. But I think after a few months. everybody kind of understand, okay, well, they are not super stupid. Let's assume for now that we continue. it's basically, yeah, something that was, ⁓ wouldn't say agreed upon, but talked about really soon in, I would say all the communications that we had with the universities. And ⁓ credit to them. mean, they basically fulfilled ⁓ I say the promise, but at least they didn't step back. ⁓

Alex Shandrovsky: Yeah. And they debate.

Tieleman: and are supporting us also their end in a very, I would nice way.

Alex Shandrovsky: Did they put some conditions of, I need you to hit these milestones in the next two months, three months for us to just feel confident? obviously a milestone of the executive team not taking the cash and burning it on the casino not the milestone I'm typically would say that's important, but it ⁓ ahead if you hit this, this, and this, and then, yeah, let's talk about more money coming in.

Tieleman: Yeah. ⁓ there were some, there were some. Yeah, there were some like realistic milestones, realistic business yeah, which mean more or less also ⁓ them on ⁓ I would say, regular basis. Okay, how are things going? I think we actually... made the milestones, how do say that, reached the milestones. in that sense, there was also no, but also investors and also the investment managers that are basically managing their company from their company. They also have stakeholders and colleagues and on their side. So there was some, I would say, management of expectations that has been done across all these stakeholders, including milestones. So I think everybody kind of was on board on what needed to happen. I think in the end we kind of made it happen. think it were not milestones which were super hard to achieve, right? So because otherwise you kind of set yourselves up for, well, ⁓ failure of ⁓ from instance and also maybe create incentives which are maybe not so good for the company as a whole because you have like a very... stupid investor milestones don't really, In a young company, in an early stage company, things change also, also from a priority point of view. So where do you wanna, well, basically put your efforts and time ⁓ So I think in that, ⁓ in all, was a very sensible approach. But, ⁓

Alex Shandrovsky: Congratulations on doing that level setting expectations. couple of questions to mind. One is, Netherlands is known for quite a lot of generous R &D grants and government support. Does your company ⁓ any of those? Or since you consider deep tech,

Tieleman: Let's. No. Yeah, it's a good one. When I started the company, a, we, I applied for a government, I think it's a loan actually. So there was like a super early loan. So there are some debt in the company before there was like capital from investors in there. So that was like government back loan, which is kind of a bit of a soft loan, soft instrument. which is granted by the government. other than that, are not indeed deep tech. ⁓ are not super capital intensive also as a company as a whole. So ⁓ not really a super good fit for really big We get some subsidies for R &D work we do. basically it's a subsidy on ⁓ the income on the that we give to our employees. So there's a small part. that is being subsidized by the Dutch government.

Alex Shandrovsky: Okay, great. And then evaluation. How you approach the valuation for the round? How did you think about what the value of the company is? Can you give our listeners some guidance to look, this is how I went about thinking what the value of my company is at the moment.

Tieleman: Yeah. I think maybe the most difficult part in negotiations with doing the round is the valuation. It's always a bit of a balance that you need to do there. I of course, we think we made a lot of progress, so the company was much more worth than when we did the initial round. The current investors said, okay, well, not so sure. mean, it's a bit more of an extension, so why should we pay more? it was a bit of back and forth. ⁓ also you don't want to the valuation to become too big because it will kind of ⁓ potential follow on rounds with new investors again. ⁓ I think in the end we just kind of made a where everybody could kind of sit behind, which was okay for everybody who's I would say on the cap table. By the way, employees were, I would say are kind of a big part of the round as well. So there's also options for the employees. all in all, think ⁓ them it's also ⁓ that they don't have to step in at a very high level because then there's more opportunity for potential for them. ⁓ Suppose we become this unicorn in like... 50 years or something. Anyway, so I think it was one of the more sticky points, in the end we did it.

Alex Shandrovsky: Thank Any recommendations to other founders about how to do that negotiation? What do you feel like was a mistake that you did in negotiation? Was there a mistake looking back at it that said, I should have done this differently?

Tieleman: I need to be self-critical now. ⁓ to. I don't think we made big mistakes. ⁓ I think we made big mistakes. So for this particular round, think we were okay. The only thing that I can think about is okay, maybe, but that's purely in the self interest for us as founders is okay, maybe spend more time finding other investors to kind of create this, I would say more competitive dynamic where you end up with a, I would say nicer valuation because now we were basically. negotiating with ourselves and existing shareholders. That's a bit of a difficult negotiation. So maybe that is something that we could have spent more time on. But then again, probably jeopardizing some of the actual business outcomes that we would have spent less time on.

Alex Shandrovsky: Yeah, but. Yep. Incredible. Look, I really enjoyed this conversation. feel like I personally learned a lot from you. And our listeners have, you I think you're a really great example of an entrepreneur. First of all, extremely humble and self-reflective, which is very straight, which is very much a Dutch approach. But also being aware of when you have a little cash, you focus on a very specific problem, very specific problem, and you become the leader in that problem. and then talk about bigger visions. And I love that you've been able to do that effectively.

Tieleman: Thank you. Thank you. I like being in a podcast here, so I think you're doing a great job helping, other founders. ⁓ I'm not ⁓ sure my wisdom is any good there, but if I could be of any help, then, ⁓ yeah, ⁓ everybody reach out. Yeah. ⁓

Alex Shandrovsky: I will. Well, you've been very generous with us. If I'm a listener to this podcast, and typically we have quite a large community who is active listening, how can I help you? You've been very generous to us. What are you looking for in the next 6 to 12 months? If I'm listening to this podcast and I say, you know what, I think I can help or I want to get in touch, what problems are you looking to solve in the next three months?

Tieleman: Yeah, it's a good one. I noticed that I struggle a bit to kind of really specifically have a good answer here. So our ambition is to, so we have money now for 18 to 24 months. So basically in like a year from now, we are back to the capital markets again and trying to find these other investors and or find the aim to close this hopefully kind of series A round of million in order to make sure that the company survives and thrives. That's of course the goal, the goal is not the money, but the goal is to kind of build a company that can at least last a little bit longer and have an impact on what we do here from a sustainability point of view. Getting there is course showing to everybody that what we do makes sense. So basically finding new markets. bringing these solutions to the markets. very objective ambitions are to do this more the US. ⁓ So one of biggest market at the moment is US Canada. There's ⁓ plenty of fertilizers used there and there's many, I would say, optimizations that can be done. So everybody who can help me there, help us there to kind of expand or do more. with the agri-food industry across the supply chain. I'm really interested.

Alex Shandrovsky: Who is the person who holds the problem? Meaning which title in an organization holds this problem, this pain?

Tieleman: Yeah. the end, it's where, of course, things the person the wallet, so basically the money, determines what's happening. So in the food industry, it's the procurement officer of the big food companies, of the CPGs. So Nestle, Pepsi, McDonald's, they have procurement officers and they source, buy stuff from farmers directly or indirectly. And yeah, these you have targets, ambitions to kind of source, buy crops, commodities with ⁓ a lower footprint. So getting in touch with any of these procurement with a sustainability target or sustainability managers with a good procurement, I would say ⁓ network their company is something could be definitely helpful to move these ⁓ kind of, call it improvements forward. ⁓ I think that's US, Canada, big market for us. And more on the supply side, we call it ⁓ and ⁓ rest of Latin where farmers are growing and basically help to their buyers that they need to invest in improvements. which in our world is fertilizer-related improvements. So they can basically grow crops in a more sustainable way, but also maybe receive a premium for the effort that they do as part of reducing some of the emissions that are there.

Alex Shandrovsky: you are that person you're listening to, reach and congratulate you again on this raise. It's been a pleasure speaking with you. Thank you so much.

Tieleman: Alex, thank you very much as well.