 This way of approaching matters has been mooted (e.g., Tallant 2009b; Ingthorsson 2017), but it hasn’t received a huge amount of support. This is due, at least in part, to the fact that it can be viewed as a partial response. We can deny that truths about the past require truth-makers, but we must go further to explain what to say instead about their truth. Presumably something must be said, if we hope to account for them. We can’t say, simply, that truths about the past require no truth-makers and then say nothing more about what they require. And while we might look to replace truth-maker theory with something less ontologically committing, presentists haven’t been forthcoming with an account of how truths get to be true, if not by some kind of truth-making account.