 I still see people connecting, so maybe we should wait for a minute longer, but I am recording now so that you have to temper your remarks to what you can face up to in 20 years. Anyway, and I won't be around in 20 years, but we start off with two bits of administration. One is basically we are gathered here under the ages of hyperledger, which is under the Linux Foundation. So we have to abide by the anti-trust policy of Linux Foundation and wherever you are that means you're not engaging in anti-trust policy that is contrary to counter to your loss. The second item is that we abide by the code of conduct, which is basically we do not disrespect each other even when we are disagreeing with people. Disagreements are fine as long as you express it nicely and stick to the points that are being discussed rather than personalities. With that, I give over the presentation to Brett and Jake who are going to lead us through the finality solution, and we will, of course, hopefully have some time for questions at the end, and that's about it from me and I'll give over the presentation to both of these guys. Thank you very much, Pippin. Really appreciate your time and for everyone on the call as well, thanks for joining. Fantastic to take the opportunity to present today to this group. If it makes sense to everyone on the call, the run and order for today's session is to give a recap of some of the work that finality has been up to, really from kind of the early days of the USC Consortium to the present day where a considerable amount of progress has been made in the interim. The value that we plan to bring to the market and some upcoming anticipated activity too. Brett, I don't know if you want to introduce ourselves first, I'll hand it over to you. Thanks, Jake. Likewise, very happy to be here and thanks for the invite. As a way of an introduction, my name is Brett Winch and I'm an architect at Finality. I work on business development at Finality. I've been here around 18 months, collaborate closely with Brett and all the other folks at Finality International on the commercialization of the finality proposition. So, if all's well and good, I'll dive right into the presentation. So, around four years ago, a few blockchain and DLT enthusiasts from within the financial services sector decided to put their brains together and explore how the tokenization of assets, most notably cash, could benefit and change financial market infrastructure. Fast forward to 2019 and what by then become a consortium had proven three fundamental prerequisites for a means of payment on-chain to be useful, impactful and effective. First and foremost, it needed to be available in multiple currencies to enable cross-border payments. It needed to be interoperable with other systems to support payment versus payment and delivery versus payment transactions and it needed to be a digital representation of money held in a central bank account to ensure that institutions could rely upon its value. So, with these fundamentals having been proven, the consortium members that you can see on the right there bought this vision closer to the realm of reality by establishing finality international, raising, doing a successful series, series A fundraise along the way. So, we have 15 shareholders, 14 of which are banks and one FMI in the form of NASDAQ. With these fundamentals in place, it was now over to the Mason Finality International to focus on developing a series of peer-to-peer payment systems built using DLT and supported by a central bank money-backed digital cash asset. So, we knew from the very start that this could only be achieved through regulator understanding and approval, a robust, best-in-class technology build, which will of course touch on quite extensively throughout this session and collaboration with business partners as well to facilitate a variety of use cases. On the regulator point, we adopted and we always have adopted an ask for permission approach with regulators. The alternative presumably would be into beg for forgiveness after the fact and as a result, we've made significant strides in education and collaborative thinking that will enable each of the central banks in scope to grant finality and account from which we can operate a finality payment system. More on that later on all of the terminology and the general structure of our solution. On the technology point, our tech has been built using a systems integrator approach, which means that we've partnered with best-in-class vendors for blockchain expertise, software development, testing, quality assurance and more, which Brett will talk about later on in the presentation. So, with that said, from an introductory perspective, I'll move on to provide an overview of the broader financial market environment in which we're operating. If you see me turning away from the screen, it's just because I've got a second month to set up. Sorry, I'm not being rude. So, what are the issues in today's financial markets that we believe a novel distributed financial market infrastructure can solve for? So, starting from the on the top row there, in terms of process inefficiency, post-trade costs in particular remain high. There's less automation at the back end than the front end, and what this means is that there are heightened costs associated with matching, clearing, settlement and reconciliations. There are also liquidity constraints. Liquidity pools are fragmented across products and across jurisdictions to support a range of disjointed activities, and this is both challenging and costly to manage. On risk management, the complexity of risk management, due to this fragmentation and the need to use multiple other intermediaries, such as correspondent banks, there's greater risk exposure, whether that's counterparty, liquidity, or settlement risk. And all of this means that margins are reducing, you know, due to all of that, but also a downwards pressure on execution revenues caused by front end automation, regulation demanding greater fee transparency and pressures from customers, too. The fifth point on the top row there, and to my mind, a particularly interesting one, new markets, particularly those in tokenized assets, will need payment rails for the payment leg of any delivery versus payment transaction. And at the moment, there are mariav tokenized assets and existence and plenty of exchanges on which to transact in them, but what's missing is an on-chain cash asset with the credit characteristics of central bank money, and that's needed to really bring an institutional level of trust to these nascent markets and fully unlock the potential of that novel asset class along the way. So on to the second row, how can a distributed financial market infrastructure address these challenges and create new opportunities in the process? The reduction in intermediaries, as you see there through the use of a peer-to-peer transaction mechanism can assist in the reduction of the risk and costs that the current state entails. And the single pool of liquidity, as mentioned there, is a concept that we at Finality get particularly excited about, and what that means is that with the linkage of a real-time PVP capability to the ability to settle any DVP transaction on a near instant basis, a participant is empowered to carry out near real-time currency swaps to support DVP settlement in any given market. And the practical effect of that is that participants can manage virtually the entirety of their cash and collateral portfolio from a single pool of liquidity rather than via the parking of capital across various fragmented nostrils, correspondence, and domestic CSDs, etc. Risk reduction also comes about as a consequence of fewer reconciliation, short transaction chains, disintermediation. Reduction in costs can be achieved through near real-time settlement, the disintermediated peer-to-peer nature of the transaction and greater automation of post-trade processes. And on the enablement of new products, I touched on the specific case of tokenised markets above, but enhanced access to a financial market infrastructure of this nature can also create new opportunities. As will become clear on the next slide, we intend to start with banks as Finality Payment System participants, but a longer term intention would be to or might be to bring all the parties to the table, subject to regulator approval, institutions like CCP, CSDs, buy side, and perhaps broader still, all of which offer new potential avenues for faster, cheaper, and safer payments in settlement. So moving on to the next slide, with all of that in mind, how do we plan to bring this distributed financial market infrastructure or DFMI to life and realise the benefits that it brings? Well, we plan to develop a group of payment systems that as a whole constitute finality global payments. Each jurisdictional finality payment system, for example, the Sterling FNPS as illustrated in the first box there, will utilise a settlement asset that enables real-time wholesale payments with near-instant peer-to-peer settlement. And together, these jurisdictional finality payment systems comprise finality global payments illustrated in the second box there, which is a network of interoperable wholesale payment systems that enable near-instant peer-to-peer PVP settlement on a cross-border basis. Initially then, finality global payments will consist of a network of five FNPSs for each of Sterling, Euro, Yen, and Canadian dollar, with the Swiss franc also likely to be an initial scope. And one of the primary positive outcomes of this network of networks is the dramatic reduction in risk, be it settlement, replacement cost, credit counterparty risk, that T0, T plus zero settlement times and 24-7 availability will provide. So it's worth noting also, particularly given presumably the focus and interest of many people in this working group, that we're architecting our payment systems with both forward-facing and backwards-facing interoperability in mind, as touched on finally in the third box there. So the concept of a, you know, as I said, the quote-unquote single pool of liquidity is something that we do get very excited about. And that's only possible with the linkage of a real-time PVP capability to the ability to settle any DVP transaction atomically and on a near-instant basis. And all finality payment systems to facilitate that functionality not only are interoperable with each other, but also interoperable with any legacy or DLT-based business application enabling that functionality. The previous point around emerging tokenized markets, as I say, requires payment rails for the payment leg of any DVP transaction in such a market. And that's also reiterated there. What is really needed is an on-chain cash asset with the credit characteristics of central bank money to bring trust to these emerging tokenized markets and fully unlock the potential of that novel asset class. So onto the design principles that guide the delivery of this vision before we move on to a deeper dive into our technical architected choices that are informed by this. So as mentioned, each jurisdictional finality payment system will utilize a settlement asset that enables real-time wholesale payments with near-instant settlement. And this will be an asset of the highest order in that it's fixed one-to-one with central bank money, and hence has a very favorable risk profile. A quick terminology point to eliminate any lingering confusion. I know we touched on it before the recording started. But finality started its life as a research project which grew into a consortium for financial institutions exploring how blockchain and DLT could use digital cash assets to settle securities trade. And this consortium became known as the utility settlement coin or USC project, which many of you may have heard of. And in some cases that might be how you came to know about finality in the first place. In parallel, of course, however, the broader DLT space continued to develop with the result that referring to a token or a coin, in this case, the anti-cause, quite a bit of confusion in the market and made regulatory bodies uneasy too. So what was formally referred to as the utility settlement coin is merely the settlement asset that enables atomic and final settlement in on-chain exchange of value transactions. It's certainly not a stable coin and as such we have moved away from references to USC and now focus as you saw on the previous slide. And as you can see here on finality global payments as the group of payment systems and finality payment system to refer to a single payment system within that network. So to achieve the design principles that you see here, finality global payments uses DLT as its foundational technology. A core rationale for this is that it enables interoperability across jurisdictions and enables other business platforms to integrate with the finality payment system to support all manner of exchange of value transactions and inherent in the nature of DLT as I'm sure everyone well knows is that it will enable full and final settlement without the need for a central counterpart or intermediary, thus facilitating a true peer-to-peer market and allowing immediate settlement, whilst also reaping the cost and efficiency benefits of disintermediated processes. So this is an arrangement which stands to provide multiple benefits which we'll discuss later after Brett provides more of a deep dive into our technical architecture choices. Excellent. Thanks, Jake. I suppose before I go into more of the lower level technical overview, I just want to stop for an opportunity to ask any questions on what Jake has just gone through. Well there are about to be many questions but I suggest you go through the presentation because otherwise the rest of the session might be taken up with the questions. Sure. Okay. So without further ado, so further to the slides that Jake just went through outlining what a finality payment system is. So I just want to take you through a very high level architecture view of the technology stack by all means if anyone wants to go into a bit more of the lower level detail offline we can certainly have those discussions but obviously it will be in the realms of what finality can share that's publicly available. But yeah, so looking at the diagram in front of you from the bottom up, so the foundation is of the finality payment system. It's based on a private Ethereum network of blockchain nodes. Finality has chosen Hyperledge Bezu as the enterprise Ethereum client choice for that and to further bolster the development of that where finality is an active member of the enterprise Ethereum alliance, the EEA. And the reason for that is we wish to continue to drive towards open standards particularly around that interoperability point that Jake raised earlier. Moving further up the stack, IBFT 2 is the consensus mechanism, the proof of authority mechanism. However, with that close eye on the market we have started to look at the implications of the more recent QBFT consensus mechanism and something that we'll be watching closely to understand how that fits into our technology stack as it progresses. Sitting on top of that, so the digital asset that holds the transferred value onto the blockchain network is an adaptation of ERC20. So in this case it's called ERC2020 and it is the asset token contract, smart contract that holds that value on the blockchain network, certainly facilitating the fund and transfer of value onto the blockchain node network. Throughout all of this, finality has a set of core technology architecture principles that all of this is based on and those three principles are decentralized, distributed and diverse. So when we say decentralized, I think goes without saying but just having no central point of control, distributed in that there are no single points of failure, everyone can see the same view independently and wherever possible we strive for open source. We want to make sure that we're not beholden to a specific technology, yeah just keeping this really as open as we can. And finally diverse, so making sure we've got an agnostic approach to design, hosting software and tooling that we use and ensuring that we maintain geographic separation for each of the jurisdictions that we operate in. Jake, do you mind moving slides? So this is just taking you through some of the research that was done on the finality payment system as we were evaluating DLT based technology options. This is no means an exhaustive list in front of you as I'm sure you can see but it's just to give you a bit of a flavour of the selection criteria that finality went through in order to get to the technology choices that we mentioned on that previous slide. So public Ethereum that was one of the early options that we investigated. I think the key takeaway here is that because it's public and permissionless by nature it means that anyone participating on it can achieve consensus. One of the key legal aspects is it does not provide the deterministic settlement finality that we require and the scalability is out of finality's control and limited to roughly 15 transactions per second. One of the other options on the table, pipeline of fabric. I think the main point here to consider is that the nodes are differentiated and hence they can act as a source of centralization. So just going back to those key principles that we mentioned before, that's quite a big block for us, big issue for us to overcome. Scalability, it fits perfectly. However, I think just the main thing there is it's the diversion away from the finality core technology architectural principles that really make that one a difficult choice. And just really driving home that the main thing that finality is trying to drive here is building towards open and interoperable standards and always constantly checking the landscape that we work in. So as new solution options come up, we actively look to investigate those and make sure that we consider that in our long-term strategic goals. Next slide, please, Jay. Okay, what we want to get out here is at the heart of the finality global payment solution are key outcomes that we set out to achieve to drive value for our consumers and our participants. So top left is interoperability. So basically, we set out to support any number of use cases with our consumers and our participants. So specifically in the multi-currency payment versus payment, a PVP and the multi-asset delivery versus payment DVP settlement space. But that's, yeah, we're really trying to create an ecosystem here that allows us to to greatly increase the use cases of the underlying finality global payments network. Privacy. So it's very key for us to ensure that any personal identifying information is not stored on the finality payment system blockchain node network. There are ways that we achieve that through different sets of technology to ensure that private personal identifying information is can be transferred in a private sort of manner. But the key there is to make sure it's not written to the fully visible blockchain node network. Distributed architecture. So once again, going back to the core technology design principles that talked about earlier in that everything we do is working towards a decentralized, distributed and diverse set of architectures. And I think it goes without saying, but security. So it's a huge consideration in everything we do, not just in the architectural design, but also the build, how we deploy it and how we support and operate on a day to day basis. Yeah, such a huge aspect. I'm just going to pass back to Jake to take you through some other items. Thanks, Jake. Perfect. Cheers, Brett. So in addition to those key areas of, I suppose, technical or technology related benefits, there are also four key areas of operational benefit here that we think are worth calling out. So in terms of payments, the primary transformational benefit is the ability to complete near real time payments on a 24 seven basis. There will be possibilities for those payments to be used for interbank and into company transactions, but also for different purposes. We have such as margin payments, for instance, and in that example, a finality payment system in the associated settlement asset can be used for the posting of initial and or variation margin. Smart contract functionality could automate parts of that process and improve capital efficiency along the way as well. And enhanced netting can also serve to reduce the need for intraday liquidity. And we are definitely working with that in mind. On new markets, the purple quadrant there, we've touched on the capacity for the on chain central bank money like cash asset associated with finality payment systems to unlock potential of tokenized assets. And a number of potential avenues for development in the space are articulated here. The common theme for all of these is that there already exists several use cases for tokenized assets across securities, commodity, property, multitude of capital markets related spaces, but without a high quality credit risk free cash asset in which to transact in them, their viability and uptake crucially has remained niche in institutional spaces. On operational resilience, it's inherent that the distributed architecture that underpins our payment system that Brett touched on just a minute ago. Single points of failure in the capacity for cyber attacks are reduced, if not eliminated, not to mention the already discussed cost effectiveness that's inherent in such a solution. As mentioned, we're architecting our payment systems with both forward facing and backwards facing interoperability in mind. Yes, we want to enable our participants to leverage the potential of an emerging asset class, as just said, but we also recognize that it's essential to remain compatible and interoperable with legacy systems too. Finally, on balance sheet management there, the potential for reduced liquidity buffers and reduced need for correspondent banking relationships has also been discussed and all of this provides for reduced risk and a greater balance sheet management capability. In some quantitative analysis work that we undertook at Finality, we found that a 25% reduction in intraday liquidity requirements can translate into savings of up to $75 million annually for large banks and it's at the heart of the Finality payment system as a value proposition to make dramatic reductions in liquidity costs possible for its user. So this is all well and good, but moving on to the final slide, ultimately all our ideas, use cases and benefits, everything we've discussed in this presentation mean little without tangible action to make them a reality, but fortunately, we believe we're uniquely placed in the market to succeed. Firstly and perhaps most importantly, we have close and long-standing relationships with our in-scope central banks stretching back many years to the days of the USC research project. The barrier to entry for any prospective competitor is necessarily high. Obviously, there's no way to develop and bring to market a regulated payment system alongside no less a central bank money backed settlement asset without close and trusting relationships with regulators and central banks themselves. You may have seen quite recently that there was a major milestone in the market that Finality were absolutely ecstatic about. We were delighted that the Bank of England published a formal policy statement outlining the omnibus account eligibility criteria for innovative payment systems like Finality, and everyone here is very grateful to the bank for their clear commitment to ongoing industry innovation and having already submitted our application to the Bank of England for this new type of omnibus account, we expect to fully comply with the bank's policy in delivering novel use cases across PSPS settlement with a new sterling Finality payment system 100% backed by FIAT currency funds held with the central bank. Alongside this, we've also submitted a letter of intent to formally initiate the opening of a central bank account at another major in-scope central bank, and we're in collaboration with their technical teams following this. With a third major central bank, we are engaged on joint account requirements, and we've shared drafts of our rulebook and core account opening documentation, and we anticipate that the recently released policy from Bank of England will do much to open similar paths to approval in our other in-scope jurisdictions. Secondly then, in addition to that, our shareholder-led consortium model is another major differentiating factor. You saw them all on the first slide earlier. All of our shareholders are very active participants in the in the governance technical development and strategic direction of Finality, and they've been instrumental in defining our core use cases, the first of which are now in active development Bankside. Thirdly, and finally, following the onboarding of several delivery partners in the fields of software development, security, blockchain development, and more, our shareholders are now in receipt of a functionally complete version of our Finality access software, which is a key part of our product suite that we can discuss further in breakout sessions for anyone who's interested, and we're engaged in testing continuous feedback and development processes and the transfer of value between participants in the test environment currently. So, those are all the slides we have. More than happy to open the floor for questions on anything in this presentation or indeed anything beyond it. That leaves the whole world open. Anything in this or anything outside? All right. I would leave, I would ask people to ask questions right now. Please put up your hands if you want to, and that's, you know, good form. And that way we can manage the people who want to ask questions. And so there seem to be one from Paolo, who's, of course, a well-known player in this arena, having worked on the Mint project. So he is asking a question, would you say that you are a natural evolution to RPGS systems? I'm happy to have a crack at that. I think that said, it's an interesting question, quite a broad one. I think that inherent in a question like that, one thing we often get asked is that, you know, because we intend to settle on a real-time gross basis, is that going backwards? You know, we want to be able to net payments if everything settles gross, like in FNPS or like in an RTGS in the current state, liquidity needs would go through the roof. And I suppose to get to the heart of that question around being a natural evolution of RTGS systems, I think for more than 40 years now, regulators have been moving financial markets towards gross settlement and away from other mechanisms like deferred net settlement, obviously driven by the Hirschdat instant in the 70s. And I think this is because the market has recognised that gross settlement improves the risk characteristics of the market, which substantially reduces the likelihood of systemic risk. And not only that, instant settlement of payments in an RTGS system or a payment system such as ours can also enable in line with one of our core goals, improve liquidity management due to greater confidence on the timing of payments. So in the sense that we are in line or aligned with a broader market trend, a broader regulator trend that has been going on for a number of decades now, and that we seek to achieve the same risk reduction, systemic risk reduction outcomes that regulators and RTGS system operators are seeking to achieve through their systems, then I would say perhaps that we are highly complementary to that. Yeah, and it looks like the money's question sort of follows along the same lines, which is how will finality work with CBDCs, particularly wholesale? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, CBDCs is a particular area of interest for me, so you've just sent me off the pin. So I have plenty to say about this. So please feel free to stop me at any time if I've taken the ball and running with it too far. But look, I mean, while... You won't be running too far, believe me. All right, well, let's see, shall we? So look, while CBDCs have experienced a surge of interest from central banks and observers alike, the majority... It's worth noting, first of all, that the majority of that interest is centered around retail CBDCs, which are obviously designed for use by the general public rather than wholesale CBDCs, which are designed specifically for payments and settlements in the wholesale sector. Despite several high-profile projects like Ubin, Jasper, Stella, others that I'm sure people are aware of, no wholesale CBDC project has yet gone live. And in fact, the focus of several major central banks, including the Bank of England, has shifted somewhat from the pursuit of wholesale CBDC to the incorporation of features of the underlying technology, i.e. DLT, into RTGS renewal programs. And I think it was the CPMI, who I think probably put the rationale best in 2018. They said that all of these proofs of concepts that have been done so far, despite being very interesting and complying with existing central bank system requirements related to things like capacity, efficiency, robustness, they look broadly similar to and not so clearly superior to existing infrastructures. So the absence of any wholesale CBDC solution yet live indicates that public sector institutions may instead wish to avail themselves of certain features of private sector innovations that such solutions wouldn't possess if they were based on traditional design choices. We can say the same thing about the finality, it's not live. To use the argument that it's not in production, especially of a project that has dragged on for four plus years is kind of... I think the argument that was about to make leverages around the broad acceptance from everyone in the CBDC community on both sides, public and private, that both sides have a natural advantage for certain things. Central banks have a vital indispensable role to play in bringing trust, stability and regulation to any CBDC initiative. That's obviously not an area in which they just have an advantage. They're quite literally the only ones who can do it. There can obviously be no CBDC without a central bank. And at finality, we seek to innovate within their regulated framework. But on the other hand, then to answer your question around why we are better placed to achieve the goals of wholesale CBDC arrangements, there are certain things that we might say that the private sector has a natural advantage for. Things like cross-border coordination, technological expertise, facilitating interoperability, maintaining the integrity of a DLT protocol. For example, a direct CBDC or a CBDC that's issued by a central bank will find difficulty in leveraging any cross-border use case, including multi-currency PVP solutions. And even in the domestic context, as well as the cross-border context, interoperability with other settlement systems for delivery versus payment use cases, we can anticipate that they'll face similar challenges. If DLT based, maintaining and coordinating a community of nodes or participants and ensuring the integrity of a protocol that's maintained is outside the traditional expertise of central banks, too. So the slide that you can still see on the screen is, we hope, a clear indication of why we believe we're uniquely positioned to succeed and ready to go live in the near future, and certainly on a much shorter time horizon than any wholesale CBDC. But I think the core argument beyond that is that all parties involved, we believe, stand to gain from a fruitful kind of public-private set to collaboration, rather than seeking to achieve these goals alone and in a fragmented manner. Yeah, sure. I mean, the argument to be made is that these are all going to coexist. That definitely seems to be the case. Today, cash coexist with commercial bank money, with RTGS systems that are directly implemented with the reserves, FedNow is working on that, also to upgrade that. So that's happening. And also your omnibus wallet idea is already implemented in RTGS in the US. There are mechanisms for private companies, in fact, doing that. But is there a room for all these different... Basically, it's a fragmentation of your reserve itself, if you are a bank, that you will have to participate in multiple programs in order to take advantage of each one of them. But coming back to your point about whether multiples currencies can be settled, I mean, you know that the BIS has come away considerably from the 2018 position in multiple ways, including the project called MCVDC, which is basically something similar to what you guys are attempting, but obviously using central banks. Anyway, you can respond to those questions, but there are also others who are asking other questions. So either we pursue that line of inquiry about whether you are going to be threatened by these different moves by central banks, or whether you're going to coexist. That is, of course, a business and a future prognosis considerations, which who knows, in my opinion. Yeah, absolutely. I should say it's actually pretty prescient time. And we're currently... We're authoring a paper slash blog post on the topic of multi CBDC. So I'll hold my tongue on that for now. Just keep an eye on the kind of finality website or LinkedIn. And I'm sure that that will be released to the world soon, which has our thoughts on that. But just to address the fragmentation point that you made there, Bippin, I think that's one that's worth just a short response to... You say that the argument of banks having to fund an extra part of liquidity, if you like, to participate in kind of novel payment system initiatives. And if that creates fragmentation question being how do you provide efficiency gains? If this is the case, to which we would say, typically a new payment system will create an overhead as funds are transferred from one account in control of the funds provider to another account in control of the intermediary. But that's not actually the case with the finality payment system. At all times, the funds provider will have the opportunity to instantly transfer funds to anyone participating in the local RTGS by defunding. And that will be on an instant basis. So the only actual overhead will be to track the separate part of funds. But this is almost certainly something that's being done by the relevant treasury function as a funds provider anyway. So will there be a... We've designed it. Sorry, go on. So will there be a bank run on the omnibus wallet? Which is what you're suggesting here? Well, not quite. I think that it's more... If you can instantly transfer money from, you know, let's say the finality omnibus wallet to the, you know, let's say, ACH omnibus wallet, some other omnibus wallet, then you are under risk of liquidity starvation, which will put a big crimp in your operations. So that's probably being protected by some other means by saying, okay, you've got to at least give us some warning, or you have to have a minimum amount. You've got to have some kind of a, you know, low watermark and a high watermark, you know, some other ways of protecting a consortium like finality. Yeah, it goes to governance arrangements, doesn't it? I think ultimately to enforce behavior that's consistent with, you know, access requirements promulgated by central banks and also behavior that, you know, isn't detrimental to monetary or financial stability. And I think that, you know, by working very closely and establishing long-term relationships with these target central banks, you know, we can allow them to, at all times, exercise control over who has access to these, the settlement asset that is part of a finality payment system. And therefore, in conjunction with a robust legal arrangement in the form of the rulebook, the participants will be expected to sign up to, you know, any behavior that would cause such a detriment. We, you know, we would hope would be prevented. And there is another question from Boulevard, which says, is finality best leveraged as a payment system or as a settlement system? Any chance at disrupting SWIFT GPI substantially? Question mark. Brett, feel free to jump in. I can have a go at that. I, perhaps, what's that, let me, I'm just sorry, I'm just going to read the question in the chat so I can see it back. It's finality best leveraged as a payment system or a settlement. Okay, so on disruption, okay. I'm not sure this is going to answer the question directly, but maybe it's around is finality, you know, on the subject of disrupting potential competitors, is finality, you know, a winner all takes play? Is it, you know, is it getting to the heart of, you know, do you need to capture the vast majority of payment flows or risk undermining the business model? Is that maybe what that question is getting at? Yeah, I mean, the point is that SWIFT is the, you know, at least the retail payment system of choice, B2B, which is, you know, definitely not, may participate in wholesale, but so, you know, I know that, for example, SWIFT is really in charge of DSO 20 or 22, really. I mean, if you think about it, although it is supposed to be a union of all the messaging standards and the Bank of England and even the Fed and others have voted on going using ISO 20 or 22. But of course, they are also thinking about the security and privacy of that. So money says he wants to ask a question about that. I would ask him to you know, ask a question about the security and privacy aspects because SWIFT is famous for being hacked. Thanks, guys. This is Manny from OTC Digital. Last year under hyperledger capital markets, we did a prototype implementation of eTaller. I'm not sure if we've been at discuss this before. It's just simply how do we implement CBDC on a enterprise Ethereum. The exact same thing as you guys suggested, hyperledger BESU and IBFT protocol will be implemented. We tested it with participants. The issues that came up were mostly around privacy, particularly with solidity because any node participant can see all the transactions unless it is completely secured with zero knowledge proof and also computation using more secure encryption mechanisms. All participant node participants can see each other's activities. How does finality work around that issue? Do you want me to cover a bit of that, Jake? Please, yeah, if you don't mind. Yeah, so we touch very briefly at a high level on privacy on one of the previous slides. So the way we do it currently is we make sure that there's no personal identifying data that gets written to the blockchain. Yeah, that's the one there. So what we are looking at to facilitate that is having a private messaging layer that sits alongside the blockchain node network. So, yeah, some of the participants may wish to send some PII data in some of the messages that they transfer to other banks. There needs to be a way in our data model that we separate that data and make sure that, yeah, any of that stuff is totally separate. So, yeah, the way that we're doing it is having a separate private channel to deal with that. I mean, generally ERC contracts, basically any solidity contract, all node participants can see, since this is being a decentralized system. In a sense, if I'm wrong, for example, if Barclays wants to, you know, is interacting with State Street, UBS can listen to because if he said, you know, this is the ERC 2020 token. How do we prevent that? Well, at the moment, for most of the transfer data, we don't. We did quite a lot of analysis as part of the research project, the research phases of the project to understand that most of that data is not going to be able to facilitate the participants changing markets with. Jake, I don't know if you've got anything further to add to that? No, nothing to add to that at the moment. I don't know if that answers your question. Manny, unless you have any follow-on questions from that. Yeah, maybe we can follow up separately because, you know. Yeah, there's five minutes left. Maybe we can set up a poll separately. I have a couple of the questions as well. Yeah, I just wanted to say that Manny and I wrote a paper in which we propose a pattern which is very similar to what you've said, but we do more than that. I mean, both of those, there are two blockchains involved. One is for bilateral agreements, which are more than just PII, it is contracts, in fact, and then the other chain is more to harbor the token and to be able to transact freely because the token in order to be useful has to be transparent in a certain way because if, you know, and people talk about private tokens all the time, I mean, I haven't seen real implementations of that unless it is in e-currency, I think. Those guys are working with Jamaica, a central bank to do that, but that is not based on blockchain because once you can see the transactions, then, you know, so they are doing something else, but it's anyway. I mean, I would just, I would, if you can forward our white paper to them and then maybe I'll follow up and then we can come back and share it with the Hyperledge group in a subsequent week. I think that would be good. So there has been a lot of discussion, certainly in my time in 18 months of finality around the whole privacy piece. Yeah, it's generated a lot of conversation. I can see how you guys have managed to write a white paper on it. So, yeah. It's not just some privacy anyway. Privacy is just one of the aspects because when you're proposing a solution, it has to cover all the different bases. Balo, do you have anything else? It's 1057. Yeah, from my side, just to say that I'm really happy to have this discussion and see the continued interest. I really have to drop off to another call. This is great to be a participant in these conversations. So thank you for organizing this, Vipin. Oh, you're welcome. I'm always interested in this. That's why I was telling Jake that he won't be going too far, you know, running too far away from us because we are, we are right there with you guys. Maybe we are not as well funded. That's all. One more item to explore also, you know, we are reaching out to FCA regarding a digital asset and that's something that we are very interested in seeing how finality could help us. So we can have these conversations after this. Because we are interested in the whole enchilada or whole enchilada, not just the payment piece, you know. So with that, when I say enchilada, I mean, today is Cinco de Mayo and let's celebrate with enchiladas. Anyway, I think that's the key thing is the finality, what we're trying to build the finality is an ecosystem. So yeah, having conversations with a business is quite a key thing. Okay, well, that's everything that we have. Very happy to obviously take any questions offline as well. I know the confines of an hour and, you know, sometimes not enough. It's gone very dark here as well. Sorry if you can barely see me. But yeah, we happy to continue the conversation elsewhere. But thank you for the opportunity to deliver this today. Beautiful. Thanks. Thanks to you guys. Thank you both for joining. Yeah, wonderful. Appreciate it. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Great presentation.