 Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, depending on where you are. So my name is Fervy Toup, and I'm Chief Digital Advisor at the IMF, the International Monetary Fund. It's a great pleasure for me to moderate today's fireside chat on digital currency model on ontology. We'll learn today what an ontology is at the DC3 conference organized by the ITU and stand forth future of digital currency initiative. So the objective for this session would be to discuss the digital currency ontology notions. And we'll learn in a minute what this is all about. It has been developed under the Digital Currency Global Initiative, and we'll learn how it can be used to describe the various operations and transactions taking place in the digital currency systems. So I'm joined today by our panelist, Jack Frankeur, Chief Scientist from the Security Inclusion Now, and also Team Leader of the Security and Insurance Working Group of the Digital Currency Global Initiative. And then John Kiff, former senior financial sector specialist and colleague of mine at the IMF. Gentlemen, thanks for joining us. I know it's very early for you. It's midnight for you, Jack. It's 4 a.m. for you and I, John. So thank you for waking up early. So, Jack, let's start with you before we even define the term ontology and what it is trying to accomplish. Can you give us a little bit of context of that work first? What groups started it? How does it connect to all the work done in context of the ITU digital currency global initiatives? Jack? Thank you, Irv, for the introduction and thank you all for your time, for your precious time today. So how did this all start? Certainly started within the Digital Currency Global Initiative group, but more in the architecture working group. I'm also involved in the security and insurance working group and policy working group, but it started within the architecture working group. The objective was to come up with a way to describe what it is we're talking about, the digital currency system, whatever that means, in a way that didn't come with it all the baggage of terminology and whether it's a token or an account or find a way to generalize it or normalize it even simpler to the point where all of us can have discussions and really realize early that we're all talking about the same thing that have a much more productive conversation. So the idea, again, the work started with what describes all digital currency types and how would we evolve into making or specifying distinctions between them? Thank you. All right, thank you for this brief context. Jack, John, let me turn it to you because you're coming from a different background than Jack. But you are coming from the currency world from a policymaker, a legal perspective, and you have been working on CBDC in particular for a long time. So tell me, what interested you in that particular work and as a digital money expert on CBDC in particular, what problems were you seeing that you think this particular work can help addressing? And who needs an ontology? Thanks, Derwey. I can't see the slides right now, so I'm going to be flying a bit blind here. But the work that you and I started at the IMF is kind of the genesis of my interest in taxonomies and to later introduce ontologies by Jack. But to start with, let's start with some definitions here. And I'm going to have to read this because it's. You have your table, John, right? I have your table. I'm good now. Yeah, I've got that in front of me. So this is what I call a taxonomy. So taxonomy is a classification scheme that provides terms or categories that a given thing can be described by. So it's got a fairly modest goal. It's to basically find some ways to define different objects in a standardized way. And the challenge that we had was that we were focused on central bank digital currency. And the question always came up when we talked to policymakers and so on about what is a central bank digital currency? So we needed to find some kind of core definitional terms for what is a central bank digital currency. And of course, the question always came up too that what makes a central bank digital currency different from a crypto asset like Bitcoin and so on. So we spent some time iterating through different definitions of what are different core elements of what a CBDC is versus all these other different types of money. So for instance, like I said, the question always came up. What makes a retail CBDC and retail being something that everyone can use as opposed to a wholesale, by the way. Well, wholesale is where it's only used by certain smaller class of users. But you can see here that there's three things with at least three things that differentiate a CBDC from a crypto asset. You can see that it's typically denominated in the jurisdiction's unit of account. So for instance, a US dollar central bank, US CBDC issued by the Fed would be denominated in US dollars. Bitcoin is not. It's not denominated in anybody's unit of account. Yet, although some might argue that El Salvador might be changing that picture a little bit. But also a CBDC is backed by the jurisdiction's monetary authority or our central bank. That's critical, too, because the CBDC is a central bank. So that's rather important. And that means it's also backed by the jurisdiction's monetary authority and issued by the central bank. So these are the key factors. And so then we ran through all these other different types of digital currency to determine what the core definitions were. Now, then I joined the ITU working group. And then I hear about ontologies. And so when we started out, Jock and I were working in totally different worlds. I don't think we certainly chatted together and so on. But we had different goals. And there's been a great convergence that's taken place over the last few years as I sort of came into Jock's world. And let me explain what ontology is, because he's coming from a totally different direction. And ontology is a formal framework that describes things by establishing the classes, relationships, and constraints that act on the concepts and entities within the given system. So in plain talk, it's more ambitious than what we're doing here. It tends to take some of these taxonomy notions, but then broaden them out and go into more detail in each factor. Like, for instance, I have runs on digital ledger currency at the bottom of mine. That's fine for me, because as a policymaker, I can stop right there. That's not much used to a technologist. Technology needs to go deeper into the different types of ledger technology, including there's different forms of central ledgers and distributed ledgers and so on. So the detail is much greater, because it has to be greater, because it's going to inform the technologist in actually building something like retail CBDC. It has to be defined in a much more granular way. So when we go to ontologies, which we will in a minute, you'll see a much more complex tabulation than you have here. But the goal in the long run for the work we're doing is to marry these two ideas together so that any of these taxonomy notions will be associated with a whole bunch of different ontology notions. So with that, I'm going to hand it over to Jacques. Yeah. So I see, thank you. So this is very interesting, isn't it? Because I do recognize on the left corner here some features that would apply to even Bitcoin or some other digital currency. So we're starting to see there's a connection between those worlds. And what you're saying is that there may be a way through ontology to connect the conversations around the world. Let me turn to you, Jacques, to hear your definition of ontology. And maybe let's start at a higher level. What are we seeing at the highest level of the ontology? Well, if I were to look at this table, what does it tell you? It has a checkbox in a cell or not. So it's trying to tell you that this has it, but this does not, whatever this is. So we have to go beyond, let's say, checkbox has this notion. It doesn't to what is the notion that it doesn't have. You're telling me it does or has something, but tell me what it is. So and the distinctions are terms, right? There's too much subjectivity per se. And so I'm trying to create properties out of these characteristics that can be assigned to one digital currency or not. So I think we can segue into ontology notions. And I think it'll become apparent the technique being used, if I may, Erwe. Sure thing. And while you're switching the slide, I forgot to ask the audience to ask a question not on the chat room, but on the Q&A box if they don't know. Go ahead. Thank you. So let's make the first kind of stipulation that we want to find some ontology notions that describe all digital currency types. So this is like the requirements of the initiative. Are there a set of ontology notions? How many of them? Not many of them. And here we've come up through this process of scientific method and iteration with a policy expert, a technology expert. But this is the assertion that all DC types can be described by five notions. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Because this is important. Sorry to stop you here. Are you telling me that of all the digital currencies that exist, doesn't matter if it's CBDC, Bitcoin, and Ethereum, and it's all the form of digital currency? And with the hundreds of features that can describe the digital currency, are you telling me we can actually summarize everything in five different concepts? Is that what you're telling us? That's exactly what I'm saying. OK, go on. Not only that. Not only that. These discoveries that may look obvious now, but we're not obvious. There is a lot of time where we didn't realize that a notion of a unit and then the notion of how valuable that unit is and how value changes. So we discovered that basically it's all about value, who owns it, and the change of ownership thereof. You can almost simply say that all currencies are about value, an amount of value that gets agreed to change ownership. And the recording part is the recording of that change of ownership. So very high level of simplicity and sort of cross characteristics that one would expect to see. Like, oh, it's all about value. And value is represented by DCT amount, digital currency type amount. And it's all about amount of value and change of ownership. It's like, wow, can it be really that simple? Probably not. So what is the definition then? We kind of call this thing the ontology notion matrix because the distinctions are of the notions. So the matrix itself in all its possible choices describes all types. You see here on the right kind of the other extreme of the ontology notion breakdown to level four. But the distinctions that you see ultimately are options and choices that you are asked to make in creating the characteristic or design of a DC type. But when you're making distinction choices, you will see architecture and technology impacts. And that's exactly what we're trying to do kind of, if I make this choice about how I determine value, what happens to the currency type. The key thing to remember that is even though we have this matrix that describes all digital currency types, if you answer all the notions of the distinctions, if you make decisions about what kind of digital currency system you will want, one unique DC type will be defined by answering all the values of the distinctions. And then you change one distinction value, you will therefore have a corresponding architectural technological difference. And by doing that one change, you in essence are changing the digital currency type. That means that every distinction that's in the matrix has to be material. A change in value of that distinction leads into a different currency type. So it can't be an immaterial characteristic. It's got to be an architectural impact. So this means that as we create the ontologies and define the decomposition structure, there's a scientific method that's involved there. So you'll kind of see that. I'm proceeding forward as quickly as possible. So here is a spectrum of digital currency types. And can you look at them from a policy point of view? Can you look at them from an architecture, technology, design, implementation, operation, maintenance point of view? So that you can see that what we're doing is injecting the ontology notion matrix right here, essentially as a prism, to take policy input in their world and put it through the prism so that we can see immediately what are the architecture and technological implications of those distinction choices that we have behind here in more detail. And just to interrupt you, Jack, what's interesting about that particular picture here is that John is coming from the left side, isn't it? I personally is coming from the right side. And I had been working with John for a long time, but there was something missing in between for us three to speak the same language. And I immediately can see here how this work on autology is offering this common vocabulary in a manner of speaking, right? Yes. So by the way, in a way, too, that the taxonomy that I presented earlier is really a prototype for that policy part of the ontology, which is left blank over there. So that will be plugged in eventually. Right. Now, the thing to remember here in ontology notions, there's a place where we stop. And that's in any prescribing of the system characteristics. So after we start getting indications of certain technological implications to some choices and of distinctions, but we don't want to stay far away from anything that would be prescribing a design and obviously a vendor, right? So that vendor would be in implementation. But we're strictly up front here trying to create a cause and effect, a decision, and a consequence relationship between let me pick how we determine value this way. What kind of currency type. And obviously, we're all using the template. We're all sort of seeing how different currency types can be created. And that brings me so far back to the question of the web at the beginning and the 90 and even before, isn't it? We had a similar situations where we had to be a bit more, find a way to describe the world of the web at the time, which was all of the place in a manner of speaking. There were a lot of vendors, a lot of initiatives. It still wasn't the internet. And then somebody came up, I mean, the ITU, the WW3 came up with a sort of ontology that really helped the internet become what it became. Would that be a fair comparison to what you're trying to do? Yes, in a sense of reducing the matter to such a level of simplicity that it could be the undercoding of how you look or architect what we're talking about here. So possibly, but that's quite a claim. But you'll see by the exercise how the characteristics of the ontology and ocean matrix will come out. And you'll see that because the number one objective is to choose terminology that is independent of the source, independent of myself, independent of John, as least subjective as possible. So that's kind of a goal. Let me proceed quickly so we can get into the conversation. This is the first level decomposition. We're going to sort of go into each one of those. But you can see there's a lot of content here. What is really important to remember as we go through this is that when the unit is produced, it's a blob. It has no awareness of what it is or that it has any value. So the blob, the unit gets self-actualization, if you will, by determining how it's going to become valuable. And as soon as we can talk about units that have value, then automatically does somebody own that value, i.e. we get it in somebody's digital wallet so that they can partake in transactions on an agreement of a certain amount of value. And based on the agreement outcome, the change in value is recorded. So re-emphasizing that this is units. All of a sudden, unit has a value. Now we have the notion of an amount of value. Let's agree on something to change amount of value and let's record it. Is that all? I mean, I'm like, it's got to be more complicated. I mean, that's a beautiful, simplistic awareness. Now we continue to decompose each of these, how do we do value determination? Well, we have a number of things here. So we're going to just dive right in quickly. At this point, I think, John, with the both of us, what we're going to do is we're going to hand it back to you. Talk about each notion. What I like about this slide is that you fooled us a little bit at the beginning, right? There is five notions. But really quickly, you dive deeply into this question. There's probably hundreds of categories in here, which is fascinating, isn't it? Because what you're seeing on the far right side, you will not zoom in. But in the world, that's what we see today. We do understand that there is this very complicated world. But if you go back to the right left side of this particular slide, then all the way back to the five notions, what you're saying is that there is a way to really simplify those conversations and characterize each of those concepts of notions, as you call them. Now, of course, we will not have the time to look into all of them. That's not the goal of today. The goal of today is for the audience to understand that work that is being done. And maybe we can illustrate it with both of you. Pick maybe a couple of those that you found interesting to maybe debate among yourself in that project. So first of all, I would say that this is a work in progress. John, so we meet on a regular basis. The way that you have to look at the ontology notion is that some things, even if I show the supply notion, we believe that rights should not be here. For example, because here, you're just a unit. You're just this thing. It has a form. It has properties. But it does not have value yet. So we argue that rights is something that you get when the unit achieves consciousness, which means has a mechanism to determine value. But we were kind of, we're still battling this as of yesterday, form. What's the form, right? So we have a unit that has a form. We're probing it. What is this thing? What is this thing, right? So it used to be the word registry. And then John said, well, you know, it's really a claim. And I argued back that, well, claim sounds legal to me. And this unit has no awareness of anything. So how can it be aware of a claim? And so John, as of this morning, I figured that was more entry. See, we had registry, two forms of currency, a registry-based, it's a number somewhere, or it's an object-based. And then came back to claim, but it can't be a claim because it doesn't know anything about value or liability. So I would say entry-based, John. Feel free to jump in anytime. But you can see that if we're having debate over the form of the thing that we're talking about, it's not, you know, we're not saying here token or account. John, you can do it. In fact, that's what people would expect me to say at this point, that's the, if you talk to an economist, they're gonna say, I want you to tell me, is this an account-based or a token-based? And as Irving knows, we've had debates at the IMF, we haven't had seminars, we'll be brought in people from the World Bank and we had furious debates by email and still don't think we have it, right? But this is where we are right now. So a claim-based currency is one that, this sounds an awful lot like an account-based one, but basically with a claim-based currency, I have, if I'm gonna pay you something, I have to first of all prove who I am, I also have to have some way of proving that I actually have some money in the account. I have to use that word, sorry, but it has to be on a register or account and that's where the debate about register comes from. So an object-based is different. That's in the physical world, that's like a dollar bill or something. It's something that is a physical thing. You don't care who I am. I've just got this, and in the digital world, digital currency world has its own counterparts to object-based, but as you say, it's a, we have this really, we're still debating this, whether this- We're still debating, yes. Yeah, does it belong in ownership? Because it's kind of a legal thing too. I'll jump in right here, because I think that explains really why this is important work, right? And this is a good example, the claim-based token, many of you may have heard this debate in Manifora before. The answer is it depends what you're talking about in reality. And I see how this particular work help actually explaining first, identifying first, what are you talking about? Are you talking about the supply? Are you talking about the legal form? Are you talking about the technology implementation form? So we will, I will stop the debate there because I know those do gentlemen, they can take the rest of the hour to debate that particular point. So we stop the debate right there, that's to move on. So I would say, you know, and so in form and supply, again, we don't, we has no consciousness, and it's just a thing. I seem to be able to describe it. So it can't be a claim because that has too much awareness of liability. It'll pick that up when it gains consciousness and value. Now, so I think it's entry-based form versus object-based form. And the justification that I came up with recently is, and remember, this is form. So if the form of the storage of value depends on a system maintaining an entry in a cell, that's a registry, it's an entry. If it is independent of the system like an object-based, so it can be described at this level as to a child, a form that depends highly on the system versus a form that is independent of the system. So because that's all we can talk about at this level is what is this architectural, fundamental, unitary distinction? And one, it's an entry in a cell. The other one, it's an object stored somewhere. So to be debated, but then how do you decompose that? And in fact, when you start answering that question of how you decompose, you will find the best way. You'll be informed further how this should be decomposed. Well, I think the key thing is if you've got a register or an account, you've got to describe how that works. And we will get to that in a subsequent slide. Exactly. And even the audience is excited by that debate. I see Sonya Davidovic from the Europe and Central Bank saying that even a token on object-based CBDC is a Central Bank liability, just like banknotes are. So see, you're really initiating the conversations here. Keep going. Let's go to the next one, value determination. So we have a unit from ontology one and it doesn't know why it's on earth yet. And so there needs to be a mechanism that will give it its value. There needs to be some ways that we can describe its behavior, increase or decrease in value, supply value constraints. So there's a number of things that we can talk about, but Zuring on how are you going to know your value? So you see here, we have intrinsic mechanisms or extrinsic mechanisms. This is a hot potato in itself. Is that the tokenization of inherent value beyond utility, cryptocurrency. And then here on the extrinsic, it's either determined by supply and demand. And again, John, you see currencies when you look at the ontology. So feel free to throw in the names of the currencies, but this would obviously be a Bitcoin scenario or a scenario where it is backed externally. That'll be an example, by the way, of the stable coin. We're all very, the people in the digital currency world are debating about different forms of stable coins. So something like a tether, for instance, is secured by assets that sit in an escrow account somewhere. Whereas there's also a US dollar based stable coin called DAI that is actually secured by crypto assets, but they're on chain and they're not sitting in an escrow account anywhere. So basically it's backed in a tokenized way, but you can see here that there's quite a selection of different collateral types that can back a stable coin. So there are gold backed stable coins, for instance, that track the price of gold and they're backed by gold held in an escrow account somewhere in a vault in Switzerland or Germany. Right. And John, as we go along just so you know in the Q and A we've got a question asking which would be how does CBDC actually fit into this? So every time you can also illustrate if you want with CBDC examples. Yeah, I think CBDC it would be probably determined by market supply and demand also I suppose because it's maybe it doesn't even, doesn't even, like we've taken a snapshot of all the different notions or sorry, the detailed, the distinctions associated with value. So it may be that this central bank digital currency doesn't quite fit into this one here because it's locked. Well, not really, like what would you say then? It would be, I think both market supply and demand except that it's a central bank digital currency is locked onto a fiat currency. It's not backed by anything actually. So maybe that would be. Remember this is value determination, right? So if it's externally pegged then see how we then created distinction under backing is very important. So here we said, okay, you're either locked in on a chain but that's obviously cryptocurrency specific. And so in the creation of this ontology, we would say, I would be concerned about locking me in on a certain technology this early in the decomposition process. So it's either on the chain or put in some kind of custodianship mode, an escrow mode as security as collateral. One other key observation- Well, I think what we're discovering here is that as we said at the beginning, this is a work in progress. And so maybe CBDC needs another element here because it's actually backed, maybe it's by none, credit. It's backed by the credit of the central bank. So maybe that's where CBDC, it's not locked in on chain or escrow, it simply is. But I guess if anything says by escrow in a sense. In the world has that power, right? I mean, we can all account for a central bank issuance but remember or a central insurance issuance by a central bank versus a central insurance issuance by a stable coin by a private bank is still central issuance, right? So other distinctions later on make it a central bank versus a stable coin. So we realized how from the point of view of value, so if the atomic unit is value and the movement of value and the re-recording of value change then collateral is fundamental because you're backing up. You know, it's a risk management technique. You can have different kinds of collateral and then collateral factor which would go into an agreement at this point here if you're thinking about all kinds of other things, hold on. I was born yesterday as a unit. I'm getting my value this morning. So I'm beginning to understand value characteristics and then of course this whole collateral part and that's just determination. So if we go back, but we have to go forward. Yeah, and I'll keep you forward because so far we've seen, okay, how supply can be described, how value can be described. Let's move on to the next notion. So we understand how this works. Let's see on the ownership, perfect. So in the first notion you're a unit, in the second notion you're a unit that has value, automatically therefore value is owned. Now you can start to see where the debate we had in that first notion comes in because you could see proof of identity and proof of control. Sound an awful lot like the discussion we had about claim versus object, right? The proof of control is associated with an object based because I just have to say, hey, I have this digital currency. I don't have to prove who I am. I got it, here it is. Whereas with the claims-based one, I actually have to show, I have to prove that yeah, I'm John and also that I've got proof here that my account hasn't enough money to pay you. So that makes this debate. That's why this debate is so interesting. So you see now that when you make choices in distinctions in earlier notions, you impact your choices and other distinctions further down. So there's a lot of interdependencies between these notions. You make certain choices, you get other ones excluded, but that's also the beauty of being able to have a system that would allow us to look at different inputs and see the output impact. But this is the proof of identity like John just said, hey, you own it if it has a form that requires you to identify. Now, I'm just typical security identification. If you require no identification, and I guess that's anonymous. So we can deal with anonymity as a zero value on the identification spectrum. So no identity required, then it's an anonymity. If there's some identification required, then does the ID exist? How sure do you wanna know that that person is the person asserting that ID? And then if there's any rights to be controlled. Now this authorization, is it the same as the rights? I don't think so, but this is okay. Now you can do the following. In the notion of units, we have rights. And I'm making the case that a unit doesn't know anything about rights yet. Only when it gets value enlightenment, does it know about its rights, its value and its liability. Exactly. So Jacques, we have questions and please use rather the Q and A box rather than the chat room, which is easier to spot your questions. But the questions from Lekanya is, is it not that demand and supply for currency to be worth anything should be driven by the demand and supplies of goods and services denominated in that currency? So I think we're making a parallel in the real economy in a way. John, you care to take this one or? Well, actually that's a nice thick way, I think into one of the future slides where we talk about the degree, which is where value is determined. So perhaps we can put that question on hold and move on. Yeah. Just to be finished, I think. Proof of control, interesting enough, direct control, indirect control. So this distinction, and the point is, we need to find root level distinctions that are that fundamental. This tree introduces the whole custodian, a custodial of your DC store versus direct control over it. So let's continue, but you can see that that's a very important consideration. So let's go to the next one. As you were saying, the next notion is agree and you're agreeing on the amount of value. And I'm just sort of saying, here you have agreement elements and liability, but also agreement outcome. Now, this was part of the discovery, is the agreement outcome of the agreement notion, simply the change in ownership of the amount that was involved in the transaction. So the agreement outcome, the only thing that can occur is the DC amount, which is at the core of the agreement, whatever you're agreeing to do with that DC amount, you get paid, whatever. The record part will simply record the change in ownership of that amount. Now we discovered that, yeah, okay, that's not your money anymore. It's out of your pocket and somebody else's pocket, but it could still be your money, but now you're given restrictions on how it's to be used. So it's the restrictions on rights, applied through the smart contract outcome. Oh, you're gonna have to put a million dollars aside and use it only for this purpose over this time. So it's still your money, but the constraints are now on the freedom that that money had before it ended up, after the smart contract. So that was interesting. It's kind of super simple. I will stay there for a second if not move on. I'm just gonna say that, then coming back to central bank digital currency that you could conceive that a CBDC could have restrictions for instance on, perhaps it can't be used outside the country. You can't use it for cross border purposes, or some even talk about a central bank digital currency is restricted in terms of like the kind of purchases that you can make. But people talk about, for instance, having this CBDC that would not allow a child to go in and buy a bottle of liquor. That sort of thing. So that's an example of the kind of rights that could be restricted. And that's why you argue for rights to be part of a unit, like this unit, even though it has no value consciousness yet, could have generic rights. So maybe clicking back to CBDC, John, you said something interesting to CBDC, which is related to a question I'm seeing from Quentin Sego, who's asking, when we're talking about CBDC, does the agreement then become survivable with regards to monetary policy? So that's your world, John. How do you use that work? And which part of it can be part of can inform the monetary policy? Yeah, that's a really rich question. I could spend a lot of time on that because in terms of central bank digital currency design, and this goes back to one of the many value distinctions that we could have carrying interest rate. We could enumerate the CBDC so that it could actually be used as a monetary policy tool if the central bank wants to raise interest rates. Generally, they can also raise the interest rate on the CBDC. But I see it's a lot of questions also, and fortunately they come in the chat box, which I only see when they pop up, but a lot of interesting questions about the value of a CBDC and how it's determined. But in a way, it's the central bank digital currency is just a digital version of the existing sovereign currency. So its value is kind of determined in many different ways. I mean, it's got a value that's locked to the country's sovereign currency, and that trades off in foreign currency markets, foreign exchange markets and so on. So its value may actually be determined somewhere else via the collateral channel that we discussed earlier. Exactly. So Jack and John, I will give you five minutes to finish the rest of your slide because we've got all the questions coming up in the Q&A box. Here is the big, meaty one. And I'll show another representation because this is not where you're gonna find any comprehension, but you see here by participant activity. So this is now the first time a participant has to exist in an agreement. And we go and we look at intra, if we do an activity in the ecosystem versus between my ecosystem and some other ecosystem. So I define or we define an ecosystem for currency as wherever that currency can live and be its currency. So wherever that currency one can live, I'm gonna do a transfer of money from a source to a destination. So you can see here in sort of language, in type one currency ecosystem, remove type one amount from type one store and deposit it. Now I'm gonna bounce over this, but we discovered that the source destination in fact occurs everywhere. So here, if we look at transactions that buy digital assets with another ecosystem or a physical asset with another ecosystem or does a digital currency exchange, you're still doing that source destination plus minus and you're taking money out of your account, you're depositing it somewhere else. So let me show you what that means. So we have the DC type conservation of supply model that was done with prior work and that we're building on. And this is a model that says, for the change in DC supply, we can have a centralized, decentralized or distributed way of doing so. Again, this is the model where you have to allow it to be a central issuance, a decentralized issuance or anything in between. This is all DC types. And then once you create or destroy currency, then you're on this wheel of don't change the amount of digital currency in circulation, but you're just moving it around. So move, take DCT amount from my source store and put it in a destination store. So this is the conservation of currency supply model where you can change it here where you can't. So all transactions occur in a pure period of peer network and that can be said of all digital currencies, but they all involve simply removing and adding amounts. So here's the visual representation of that. So we discovered that there's an atomic swap in the universe that is simply remove an amount from a source store, put that amount in a destination store under this condition. So we demonstrate this transfer right here. I'm going to transfer an original amount from my sender store to a destination store. Now I can say sender, receiver, and that's fine. We can, well, we do say that, but this is a transact within the same ecosystem. If I subtract it from one DC store and I put it in another DC store where I'm the destination and the sender, then I'm just doing a transfer between stores. Now, let's say you wanna do another transaction. You wanna buy something. You're doing exactly the same thing, but now you're going to another ecosystem and you wanna buy a digital asset. And so you take out the money from your store and then there's a normalization function that has to occur. Are you giving me enough money of what I want for my digital asset equal one? So your amount equal what I want, I'll sell you it. If it's not denied. So remove the buyer. I removed the amount from my bar store, put it in the seller store, but then the seller changes ownership of the digital asset to buyer, right? At the end of the day, change of ownership. Now I wanna buy a physical asset in another ecosystem and I'm taking the money out of my store. Here I wanna buy a physical asset. You get the same normalization function. Are you giving me what I'm asking? And then the money is deposited in the seller store and then the seller delivers the physical asset to buyer. Now, if you're doing a pure exchange, then you're just taking an amount of money out. And the exchange rate is the value of the unitary ratio of the value and you get your deposited money in another DC store called, but you're the same person, the exchanger and took money out of one wallet by one DC store and I put it into another. So the conclusion is that everything can be described by these four types of transactions. All of these transactions have the same initiation characteristic event. And then the addition of the money always occurs in these purchase asset cases, there is a condition that it has to be maintained, but now describing everything in terms of these atomic moves. By the way, I just had an interesting little flash of a light bulb moment, you said wallet. I think the word store for many might be confusing. And I think actually that every time you say store, I think if you put wallet, it would be a lot more, it could be closer to home for most of us. So you thought I was going shopping or something? Yes, so the DC store is simply the name of the wallet. But you say I slipped, I have faux pas. That's right though. The last year record before we finish, and you may want to be so recording. But before you go to record, I mean, you're right, we need to finish, but I just wanted to point out the past slide, the last slide was very interesting because here people can start seeing how such the ontology that you've been describing so far and just looking at this ownership and transfer of value can help, for example, the industry who's building bridges, who's building wallets or multi currency wallets to use your work to hold that informed data work. Beautiful, go on. Well, what's interesting here is if you look at this path here, I'm taking money out from my source sender store and I'm putting it somewhere else. The fundamental question is what is the DC wallet path? What is the inter DC wallet path between where I took my money out and where I put it in? And you can see that we would say, well, do you have direct control? No, I have indirect, that's custodial. So this path here, we have to model the variations of the potential paths, but we have to do so architecturally and there'll only be a finite number of potential path combinations, two custodials, the two are both custodial and they're both, so there may be some odd paths that these things take, but that's being modeled. Okay. Lastly, go ahead, Irving. No, I was just driving you to that slide. Thank you. Now everything is said and done, right? We went through an agreement, smart contract, there's an outcome change of ownership, let's record it. Now we characterize, what are we recording as, well, it's an update in changing of ownership. So here record is like mechanical, right? This is mechanical stuff. It's all happened. It's, and if you look at, it's settlement, transaction finality, but in terms of how it's recorded, we take the approach of one ledger versus more than one ledger, and then even if it's one ledger, you kind of have the centralized, this is still work in progress, because here's my word, register. But- Yeah, and Jack, sorry to interrupt you here because I think people really have a good idea of where we are right now. And I really want you to take a few minutes for you maybe to turn back to the audience and explain, okay, what's next? What can we do next with, and how can the audience be maybe involved? Can I just jump in for one second though? That last slide is important to a question that's sitting in the Q and A about tamper proofing and the symmetric keys and so on. This is the domain of that. What we go into, we go deeper into each of these distinctions in the sort of the technological ontology, which is something to the right of this. That's where we get into all those questions. But remember, this has to fit all use cases from centralized to decentralized. So good segue, Erwe, into what's next. And of course, the proof is in the pudding. That means that there are two initiatives with it in essence just starting. So we'd love anyone to contribute. So this is a call to participate. So we have this ontology that's supposed to describe all digital types of currencies. Let's test it out. Let's take some purest cryptocurrencies types and some purest CVDC types and let's fit the ontology notion to both and it will improve and inform the ontology in that process. So that's a refinement process. And I think it's important to note also that the ITU is a very open organization. You might think, oh, it's a UN-based organization, only central banks and governments can be involved. But that's so far from the truth. Our working group includes people from some people from governments, some people from firms that service the digital currency arena. So it's a completely open process. And you can see here- And one question related to that, Jacques, is how can we contribute? There are specific platforms to use. Who would they get in touch with you? Yeah, so if you go to the digital currency global initiative, I think there's a link at the very first slide. You'll find on the right different forms of engagement, registered just to be informed by newsletters or registered to participate. And so here, the DCGI is organized into three working groups. So you have the policy, the architecture and security. So whatever you are, you can align yourself with the working group of choice. But there's one thing that we try to do a little differently, although this actually makes the work harder. So the vision that we had in DCGI is we should all be talking about the same thing. And that's the problem. Usually even people within technology or even security, when they talk about something, they don't really talk about the same thing, right? It's the classical problem. So we have these three working groups and they're obviously specializing in, but we're really trying to solve the thinking interoperability problem. Exactly. By this ontology language, we'll finish up our survey this way. We're trying to get the language confusion out of the, it's gonna be tough conversation because everyone has their language, but we adopt an ontology language and we use DCStore instead of Wallet. We use an entry and a registry instead of account. And I can tell you, Jacques, that the comments are coming up in the chat. People are offering to help. So you're saying they connect to the website and get in touch with you. Please, if you can maybe in the chat share your email address if it's more convenient for people to get started and we get them started on working with you. And let me get my key takeaway, my key takeaway that I was taking notes as you were taking to me that three things that then stand out, right? The holy grail of digital money is to establish interoperability across all of those digital currency. We've been trying to do that for years now, for your hot topic. So what you're proposing here, I understand, is to start with the interoperability of the notions of the concept of the features that describe first and foremost, what is a digital currency and how it behaves. So we're making a step towards this holy grail. Number two, amazingly, despite possibly, as I said, a hundred of differences between those different digital currencies, you have managed to group these differences into simply five boxes or five categories, notions as you call them. And the way it is produced and supply, how value is assigned, what describes the ownership, how agreement and consensus are achieved and how events can be recorded, just five. And finally, my final takeaway is that this is work in progress and that essentially, which is useful to the industry as a whole and anyone in the audience can help at this point. And before closing the session, I would like to inform you that the DC3 conference continues this afternoon, where we have two more sessions for the security track. The session at 2 p.m., the 2 p.m. CET, we'll discuss the security and privacy aspect of digital currencies. And the last session at 4 p.m., CET time, is a deep dive session and the digital currency validation for protection and resilience. And we'd like to invite you, of course, to join those sessions. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the panelists for their participation in today's sessions and sharing their insights on this topic. And I would like to wish you all a pleasant day and thank you for your attention, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Well done. We will see you later. Indeed. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.