Joe: What we have seen in the market is that check fraud has gone up significantly. Which is crazy, right? Because who’s using checks? Banks stopped paying as much attention to checks because they were dealing with cards and trying to get card fraud under control. I don’t want to say nobody was minding the store, but that’s what happened. Fraudsters figured it out. Kind like Catch Me if You Can. Right? We saw fraudsters pull off large scale check fraud. And it was significant last year. Fraud is an ever-evolving game between banks and fraudsters seeing what they can tackle next. With regards to these new payment types, fraudsters are certainly looking at RTP and Zelle®, but they’re not ignoring traditional transactions, like ACH. We see a good amount of ACH fraud still out there. How do banks cut fraud off at the pass? Even if they don’t and fraud gets through the door, which it’s always going to, how can banks recover? That’s the work we’re doing in the back end and with recovery. Dave and team have some really cool things lined up this year for ACH, specifically on automating more of the process to get that money back from the original bank, as quickly as possible. The risk with these new transaction types and with prepaid is that when the money’s gone, it’s gone. That’s not always true with ACH. The money is still there for a few days and it’s easier to recover it. There’s an opportunity to get that money back by automating the process, which is certainly a place where we come into play. David: On the product side, we want to ensure we are reducing account holder friction as much as possible. For ACH, the process is cumbersome for consumers. For card transactions, if you’re a victim of fraud, you call your bank up and say, “I don’t recognize these transactions”. Then you’re pretty much done. They take the investigation from there and let you know what happened. For ACH there are rules about how much time account holders have to report fraud, then they often have to sign things…Who wants to print things out or use DocuSign? A lot of institutions require signatures for ACH claims, but do they actually need one? We dug deeper into that and poured over the laws, NACHA regs, etc. to develop solutions where issuers don’t need a signature. If we already know who the person is. If we’ve got a recording of them. If we’ve told them that they can only file a claim if they’re a signer on the account, then we’ve figured it out. So that’s an exciting change because as I mentioned, banks are increasing friction on some of these processes. Our goal is to reduce that as much as possible when the transaction already occurred. We’ve got to shorten the timeframes; we’ve got to make it easy for consumers to get through the process. Determining true fraud versus first party fraud is top of mind for us. Our software houses the data needed for answers to questions like, “Who is the person that’s reporting this? What kind of history do they have? Do we have reason to believe their story?” If a bank stands to lose $10,000, they need to do a little research – they’re required to do that research. What information can we put at their disposal to help them get to the truth of the matter as quickly as possible.