In fact, OpenLedger and Camp are essentially doing the same thing — which is to fight for the benefits of AI's production materials. The difference is that OpenLedger's production materials are user data, while @campnetworkxyz's production materials are works. This logic is similar to the logic of resource tax and value-added tax collected by the government. The government collects resource tax from enterprises because they have free access to certain natural resources during the production process; the government also collects value-added tax from enterprises because, in the process of adding value during production, they actually consume certain resources for free. The essence of taxation is distribution, and after collecting taxes, the government redistributes the funds to other departments or regions through transfer payments. Both @OpenledgerHQ and Camp collect value during the AI production and value-added process and distribute it to the owners of the data and the creators of the works. This logic actually supports a viewpoint of Brother Bee, which is that the government should allocate a portion of the funds collected from resource tax and value-added tax for environmental protection, thus maintaining sustainable economic and natural development. When AI creates and adds value, it should distribute value to the providers of AI's production materials (data, works). When enterprises create and add value, they should distribute value to the production materials (natural environment). This is the logic of how the world operates; value distribution requires a certain balance, which is essential for the coordinated development of social economy and nature, as well as AI and natural persons!