 Can I add my name? Well, totally. Not for you, Rachel. Oh, yeah, thanks. Welcome, folks, to the, well, we're squeaking one more in in May. This is the 31st of May, 2023, Aries Working Group call. And today we're gonna talk, this is a important conversation, but as it relates to the open wallet conversation, but mildly peripheral, we're anticipating a presentation from them next week on more of a formal proposal. And so today is a little bit of background stuff that came out of last week's conversation about what, about what exactly Aries is, et cetera. And I think that we'll have some sort of good general conversation today, but without necessarily pressure of evaluating a specific proposal, and that will provide some useful conversation for further topics we'll have. So thank you for coming. This is a hyper allergic call. So the antitrust policy and the code of conduct are in effect. Please be mindful of those and please raise any concerns you have, either to Stephen Curran or I, or to hyper ledger leadership generally, and we can get those things corrected. You're welcome to add yourself the attendees list now that I finally published the page. Again, the link is in the group or is in the Zoom chat for the link to today's agenda. Is anyone here new or would otherwise like to introduce themselves to the group before we get going? Alex, your hands up. Was that for that or something else? It was for that, yeah. Hello everybody. Alex Metcalf here with the governor of British Columbia. John has brought me in. I do a lot of communications and marketing work and I'm gonna contribute some time towards the great ship that is Aries and I think there's many aspects I could help with with the chunk of time I've got from summarizing and having a perspective on the decision around the Wallet Foundation through to how we better communicate the benefits of what we do to people coming into various levels. So happy to help out, happy to be here and I'll just listen mostly for today and be catching up a lot but I may have some questions ongoing. Fantastic. I also want to give a nod here to Helen and Tim. Tim and Helen work for DCO but Helen also serves as the marketing chair. Helen, I'm getting that right of Hyperledger. Yeah, I was elected the Hyperledger marketing chair by the membership. So I represent the sort of dues paying members who are part of the foundation and help support the overall kind of guide the ship along with Ben who is on the call who is actually the Hyperledger communication staff person in charge of all things marketing. So, hey Ben, you can introduce yourself as well. Yeah, Ben, you did have your hand up. Sorry, I didn't mean to jump the queue there. I don't know at all. No worries, thanks everyone. Actually sorry, I didn't realize you on the call Helen and yes, I'm Ben Thomas. I run marketing and communications five pleasure foundation and Helen kindly asked me to join the call today to answer any questions in relation to Hyperledger areas branding and possibly provide an updates on the developments of a new brand that we're rolling out soon and a new website. Yes, and so the reason I wanted to sort of call that out was I, this is normally of course a developer focus group but I appreciate those with other skills that clearly we need that are around and involved and knowledgeable in all those things. And so hats off to those of you who are looking to assist and make our work more visible and approachable. And so I super appreciate that. Excellent, others that would like to introduce themselves. Okay, appreciate everyone being here. On the announcements we have coming up in like next week I believe is the Dice Europe. Did I do that right? Yes, this is next week Dice Europe. And then we have the hackathon and the non-creds workshop, which is today actually. And is this at A.M. Mountain? Is there's maybe a reason that Steven's not here if that is going. Pacific I think. What's that? The Pacific. Pacific. This happens the hour following this one. Yeah. Excellent. So if you're looking for something to do in less than 60 minutes, then here's your link for a non-creds workshop. Any other announcements that we should have? Awesome, are there any pressing release status or work update topics that folks want to float today? I'm hoping to save as much time as we can for the main topic. Thank you for all the work that all the folks do. That's what keeps this everything alive and it's often under-recognized even in this group. So we appreciate your work. So this is a little messy. This is the stuff that I'm adding at the top and I'm sort of cumulative of keeping some notes as it relates. And so this is the relatively the new section of the agenda here with the other stuff brought along to sort of have the notes all in one spot without having to jump to five or six pages. And so what I wanted to do today was talk about the terms wallet and the term wallet and the term agent and how they interplay. And then there's some a little bit of observation that I would like to share from my perspective about sort of focus of work. And I think that that will be helpful in a way to do that. Are there other topics that we want to address prior to getting into this conversation or in addition to getting into this conversation? Okay, I want to nod real quick and say that the did peer, one of the other conversations we've got going on is the transition away from unqualified dids. And there's, in that vein, the did peer method three which is a short more efficient version that you can drive from a did peer method two has been merged into that spec. So I appreciate all the work that has been done there. And that's good. Okay, let me tackle these actually slightly out of order. Let me talk about some observations that I have that I think are relevant to sort of the focus that we have as a group because I think it's an interesting, there's some interesting color here that I don't know exactly what to conclude from but it's something that has become really obvious to me over the past couple of months. And I'd love to share thoughts there and then we can have some more open conversation as it relates to things that got right or didn't get right in those observations. And then the term agent versus wallet which I don't really, that's not intended to start an old argument for argument's sake, but rather to talk about kind of what the terms mean as a way of exploring sort of the scope and the meaning of the work that we are engaged in. And so, okay, let's charge ahead and if we, and if anyone has suggestions on how to modify the agenda or topics to do then I appreciate those all along. Sometimes these, hopefully these conversations go in unexpected ways which can help us with the understanding of what we've got going on. So first let me talk a little bit about focus. I've noticed in the past little bit that even more starkly that there are many participants in the larger decentralized identity SSI ecosystem that are very focused on verifiable credentials. Now that shouldn't necessarily be surprising. Verifiable credentials are a really incredibly useful tool for portable trust, for reducing the cost of data integrations, all sorts of really useful things and the modified data flows to involve often people in the center of it instead of at the periphery. There's some really good behaviors that are brought on by VCs. But I've noticed most recently that there's a lot of over focus upon VCs as in the sense that the verifiable credentials themselves are viewed as the end goal of our efforts is that SSI is VCs and decentralized identity identity is VCs and that even to some degree that although this is a way more controversial that dids are useful for VCs but less useful for other things. And this community by specifically I mean the areas community has always in my mind had a little bit of a different view here and maybe I'm reading this wrong but it has been a little bit more about what happens because of verifiable credentials because we have these abilities than necessarily the delivery of the actual technology itself. And this is important because it influences choices of technology and where work effort is placed and that has an effect upon the projects that we actually have. Didcom's a large differentiator here in the sense that Didcom was never designed to be VC centric in that VCs are either a required thing or that Didcom was created for VCs alone but rather as a more general a metaprotocol that allows two parties with dids to communicate with each other. And one of the really useful things to do is use credentials of course in that communication but and credentials can add trust to that relationship but the actual existence of the communication channel allows for so much more and we've had some demonstration of that not as much as I think we have coming but we have protocols that don't necessarily have anything to do with verifiable credentials but happen over that same channel. And this is something that is interesting to me because it differentiates the work at least as I see it as a qualifier there I don't claim to see everything perfectly. A differentiator between the work that we have been long engaged in and then a variety of other protocols. And when I speak of other protocols I need to be careful here in the sense that when I talk about what I see is the advantages of Didcom I'm in no way proposing that we don't support other protocols that are more focused on verifiable credentials but I wanted to highlight the fact that the reason we care about Didcom and sort of the patterns that we've been developing is in fact because there are advantages that these other protocols didn't have they were not really born here or whatever else because we've had a focus on some things that are a little bit more powerful from that perspective. And here's an example and I'm really not trying to throw shade here just to make an observation and I think that they would agree with this the open ID for VCI and VP the open ID related credential protocols are effective at passing credential information and that's what they're designed to do they're very narrowly designed to do that which means that to some degree there's a lot of other details or other complications you might argue that can be left out because they're only focused on credentials as a specific task that they have in front of them. Didcom is often conflated with a specific protocol in Didcom often the credential issuance and presentation protocols inside of Didcom because that's the lens by which people are sort of looking through this meaning the VC lens causes them to sort of see Didcom only as a method to move verifiable credentials. In the larger world one of the things that was really obvious to me at the European Identity Conference this year was that the number one decentralized identity and SSI have become sort of the hot topic the very hot topic the year before it was mentioned but it was the hot topic this year and but as a result of that there's a massive focus on verifiable credentials very specifically and specifically protocols that are designed to do that and it has occurred to me that Didcom itself I don't think it's very well understood for what it actually offers in contrast to what the other protocols actually provide and this is a little wordy but I'm hoping to convey that at least in my view a long goal that we have been pursuing is for the engagement of a variety of activities related to decentralized identity among which verifiable credentials are an important piece but only one important piece in the presence of others that enable this larger ecosystem to work in a really powerful way and so that was not obvious to me and maybe it's obvious to everyone else and I apologize if so for taking up your time that there are sort of major priority differences or major fundamental differences between the work that we've been pursuing and how we see things and the work in the other related work in SSI that has been focused on inside of other communities and that was very interesting to me. The other also possibly unrelated thing here is that this community possibly just historically also grew up with more of a focus and an attention on trying to maintain privacy as much as possible and so there tends to be an affinity within areas for credential types that do that though certainly we have support for credential types that don't have all of those same features and are supported in our software but there's certainly an external perception that we're very focused on that and I wouldn't say it's necessarily incorrect that there is a lot of affinity within this group perhaps more than there is outside of this group for those technologies and I don't know if that's unrelated but only historical but it's another observation that I have is that that has tended to be an affinity of how this is done and so anyway those are some observations that I have and I hope those are useful and can help inform our discussion as we get into really talking about the difference in approaches that we have and partially what makes Aries unique. There are other software projects that are not inside of Aries that are in this space and I think that Aries has something important and I think it's important to recognize the valuable bits that we have that we want to preserve so that we as we discuss options moving forward it's a little bit easier to compare sort of that having some clarity around that with what we have with the options that we have in front of us. So I apologize for soap boxing just a minute but I hope that that provides some useful context there any thoughts before we dive into the agent versus wallet term discussion? I have a dumb question or maybe a naive question aside from OpenID are there any other communities that one thing that drew me to Aries originally was that because this group works on the whole stack from low level stuff all the way up to high level usability kind of things it seems like this community ships the most usable tools so other than OpenID which that seems pretty mature what are the other communities that are focusing on VCs? Well, from a protocol perspective there are two main other ones one is the CHAPI community CHAPI is the credential handler API inside of browsers that is designed for sort of browser to browser interaction or browser tab to browser tab if you will as it relates to wallets. So this is very much focused on the browser oriented wallet and wallet support. The other one is the collection of VC HTTP APIs that take an API centric approach on how the interactions both within users sort of domain and then between parties should occur. And so those tend to be the other two those are a little bit more focused on the W3C as sort of a nexus of where those conversations actually happen. Well, that's where the comparison is fuzzy is like those only do like a part of what I think Aries different Aries protocols do in the wider idealized scheme, right? So you're making a point here that this community tends to focus on a larger vertical piece of the stack which ironically has gotten us in trouble in some views because they feel like we're not making things piecemeal enough as we design stuff. Right, well, and defensive y'all that's why it seems like this group produces the most usable things is because focusing on little piecemeal parts those groups seem to advance much slower and run into more trouble because they don't focus on the whole stack. That's my opinion though naive and very naive opinion. I don't think it's super naive and I think that that started from the beginning. So there's a number of things that have spun out of Aries the most obvious one is did come there are some interests externally and made that happen. Oh, I didn't mention decentralized web nodes. So yeah, thanks Alex, the decentralized web nodes DWNs squares behind that there was some Microsoft involvement I don't know if there is any more yet or if there's any more but decentralized web nodes are another concept that is more storage oriented than necessarily communication oriented but there's some interesting bits there too. In none of these are exact replacements of each other or necessarily you have to choose one or the other but naturally most groups have tended to sort of prioritize the development of some protocols over others in the inability to have infinite resources to make stuff happen. I also have to highlight some really good work being done. So the Aries framework go community a long time ago was more focused on sort of Aries but without having anything to do with Indy. I think it got some Indy support added later by another party than the original developer and then AFJ has done a lot of work integrating both additional credential types and additional protocols into the code base. So the mission of Aries was never really narrowly defined as being only sort of the protocols that we have sort of ended up focusing on initially. It sort of just happened that that's where the nexus of work has been. So sorry, a little bit of an aside but stuff that I didn't say earlier that I should have. Charles, I think your point is good and I think that we as a community produced sort of the earliest full stack working thing that was cross-code compatible as a way to make that happen. And I think that's good. I think that, I think that's not his. And it's a measure of success that things have spun off to become isolated. Like DICOM can be its own thing. I think that's a measure of success of the community of what you all have done because it seems like having an implementation and spending all pieces that people can fit together seems easier than trying to make the pieces separate and then fit them together later. But that's an engineering opinion, cathedral versus bazaar, right? Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Charles. The floor is generally open. So Sam, it's John. So I agree and that's why I asked Alex here because we work on a lot of presentations and materials together. And when I talk to people now, I talk about what are we trying to accomplish? Sorry. And we're trying to create the opportunities for people to communicate amongst themselves with government, with businesses, business to business and have confidence that their digital relationships are confidential, that they can exchange authentic data, be it formal credentials, just unstructured chat, business documents or whatever, the whole richness of relationship, which is much more than just pulling a little thing out of your wallet or your filing cabinet to prove you're incorporated or whatever. And that you have some measure of privacy controls. Those are the three qualities that we emphasize. And from that, you can build your, the rich, complex, adaptive system that is your life or your business. It's much more than just passing a token and the mental model behind that is access control. So there's a lot more to life than access to a system. So that's kind of, I think, some of the messages we need to bring to the top. Thank you, John. Wallet to wallet verification, and that is a stark example of something that's different. One of the things that I would love to see more, I think lots of us share this view, but it's not just important for institutions to verify the information of people, but for people to be able to verify the information of other people, but also institutions. And I think that verifiable credentials are often looked at the other way where the holders are the people that have them, but other people are the verifiers. And I yearn for and envision an ecosystem where everyone is a verifier in some sense during their transactions. And that allows for the mutual trust to be built up that is necessary rather than sort of mimicking today's world where SSL certificates, TLS certificates, and client-side certificates both exist, but client-side certificates and practicality don't really exist. And so they exist, but they're not ever used. And I think that we can do better in that sense. And so being able to verify from the mobile side, not because you're a special institution, but simply because you're a person who wants to verify credentials, I think is really important. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that's important potentially for people and communities, like I'm disabled and I have people come to help me. Sometimes it might be nice if somebody could be here to verify they're actually a care worker from the health authority or other kinds of help. Or just allow you to, obviously with some device help, but the fact that you could receive a presentation from them would be incredibly powerful. Other thoughts? Let's move into the wallet versus agent term discussion. We have long called them ARIES agents, not necessarily ARIES wallets, but are the more recent move into sort of a stronger mobile answer from the ARIES community has invoked the term wallet again. And a lot of time has passed. And so I think it's worth talking about this. The term wallet traditionally inside of the ARIES community, and I say traditionally because I do not believe this is universal use now, has referred to the actual sort of key storage, key management, signing, and encryption side of things. And that could be translated, for example, to Ascar as sort of the wallet that lives inside of the agent. And then agent has been described as the software that has a wallet, but that does other interesting things with it, right? Leverages the wallet on behalf of the user in order to provide interesting interactions. And that's the terms that we have used, but it's messy because there's all sorts of conversations happening all over the place to talk about that. And so the term wallet has also come into common use, not just outside of ARIES, but within ARIES, as it refers to an agent but that exists on a mobile device. And so there's a little bit of conflicting stuff here. And I'd love to sort of open up for people's thoughts where the terms that they have heard in use or the terms that they feel are most relevant or mean the right thing in the right context, who has opinions about terms. And I ask, what's the framing of the conversation? Has this come up as a concern? Is there a reason to choose one over the other? I don't know that it's been concerned necessarily, but there has been sort of an ambiguity there as it relates to our conversation. So the reason I'm trying to draw this out today is not necessarily because someone's proposing that we switch terms exactly, but that I think that having this conversation will help highlight what we, ARIES, are and what we produce. And I think some term clarity there will help us to message it more clearly in conversations we both have internally and to other parties. Thank you. Ken, your hands up. Yeah, I wanted to emphasize the difference between agent and wallet, particularly focused around some of the other protocols like question and answer or payment negotiation or any of the other protocols that can be communicated between agents that aren't necessarily wallet-y things. Wallets do play an important part of that in establishing the identity of the person, the key management and all that other fun and interesting stuff associated around VCs and DIDS, but some of the behaviors and things that we're trying to incorporate in the ARIES community involve more than just issuing a verifiable credential and verifying a verifiable credential. And so I think that the term agent is broader and encapsulates those much better than just a wallet concept. This is Mike. Ken and I are sharing an office. That's why my audio looks like Ken's audio or vice versa. Just to tack on to that thought, I've had conversations with customers where they're like, what's the difference? And your app only offers wallet functionality. So it only holds credentials or whatever. So why do you call it an agent? And so I think that also highlights the necessity of having some demos and some use cases that utilize those other protocols and functionality so that when we draw the distinction between a wallet and an agent, people will say, oh, a wallet is for these purposes and the agent can do more. Whereas right now a lot of the demos and use cases don't utilize anything beyond what looks like a wallet. And that's part of the reason I think for the confusion is that the agents aren't doing a lot of things that aren't very wallet-like at the moment. Got a thumbs up from Alex on that one. Steve, your hands up. Yeah, I enjoyed those thoughts. I'd like to second them. A lot of times, at least with the people I talked to, we look at a wallet as an app. So the Apple wallet, the Google wallet. And that's the main purpose of the app is being a wallet. The other side that leads more towards the agent side, which is I think where most of us are gonna end up, is that we create an app that has wallet functionality. And so the app does whatever it does, whatever you made the app for. And then it needs to exchange verifiable credentials and verify them and hold them and assert them and all that kind of good stuff. And so there's, when we talk about, this kind of came into my mind a little more when we talk about rules and verifications and such that wallets need to adhere to. And in my way of thinking, a wallet oftentimes will be part of an app. And so what we're talking about is constraints on app design. And that's a nuance I think all of us need to ponder is what is it exactly we're building? Are we all building wallets? Are we building apps that have wallet and agent-like functionality as part of their purpose? Just thought I'd throw that out there. Steve, when you're talking the, you said what's the purpose of the app, right? I'm paraphrasing. And I thought we don't call them TLS engagement applications, we call them web browsers. Because the purpose is to browse the web and they engage in TLS behaviors as a useful aspect of doing so. But it's not about the TLS, it's about the web. And I think what you were saying is that, if I understood you right, is that we ought to be thinking about what the app is actually doing rather than the method by which it's doing so. And that may help clarify. Did I understand you right, Steve? Yeah, that's exactly it. Just, well, exactly that. Yeah, that's good. Okay, thank you. I'm trying to be brief and not just go on. So you got it right, thank you. Awesome, Alex, your hands up. Yeah, a few thoughts. There's a bit of it depends. I think that when we're talking to people outside of our immediate sphere, if you're coming fresh to this, a wallet is a much stronger term. A wallet is a very obvious concept from the physical and everyone gets it. But agents, even not in the text space, doesn't mean much. You think secret agents, you know, 007 stuff. So I think it's important to think about the words as they might be received from outside this. I think that a wallet with extra capabilities is more understandable because, okay, it's a wallet. The whole thing is you can do more things because of the things it holds, or whatever the way of approach it might be, but just say that the wallet is a more approachable concept than agents if you're starting from, say, more senior decision makers or people outside this area. I think that lends itself to one other thought, which isn't directly on this, but it's, so I mean, podring for last, the last wall is all these capabilities, all this potential is realized through take up, contraction and use. And what's most approachable to people, I see often personally, and that people can really get, is around wallets, the idea of a wallet and identifying yourself and credentials. It's very tangible. There's a land grab that comes from that. I think that's the starting point is that this gets adoption through people wanting to be able to hold things. And then the extra capabilities are realized on top after that. But if you're not there first, you can have all this potential where it could be, but then you miss out to a good enough solution that gets the most traction worldwide and that's the ballgame. And then they can extend it which are where they wish because they've got the actual buy-in from various people. So for all those reasons in this discussion, I think external comms beyond what we know it can do, I think wallets is broadly a stronger term. Yeah, I think I've mentioned this before, like the word phone changed, what it meant changed somewhere around, well, in particular 2007 when the iPhone was released. I mean, the iPhone has a phone app. It's not quite recursive, but okay. So it's something that people identify with and then you show them more. So a couple of our team, user experience team went out to a small town and did some user testing in the wild with mobile verification. I don't think I heard back that people said, well, why is a wallet doing this? They just enjoyed the ability to communicate and exchange like what we would call do proofs, but imagine you go to rent an apartment and you could create a connection, exchange proofs of things right there and a chat function and that's a rich conversation that just happens peer to peer. That's happening with your wallet app, but who cares what it's called? Just made me able to do something that was important. Yeah, if I can jump on the back of that, what John said and what I said before, the use case, the real world value is what draws people in. So when you can do stuff, they don't really care about what's below it. So starting with what's really obvious they can get and it's doing something they need to do and then we can build on top and find more features. However it gets there and the terms we use is almost by the by, if we're answering real world problems as well. Well, and combined with the, with the, well, essentially the promise, but you can expect it that this wallet provides you with some promises, which is that your interactions are confidential, that the exchanges are authentic data in different ways. Even if they're chat, they're happening through a confidential channel where you may be already convinced yourself, you know who the other party is, formally or not. So that there's a set of promises that differentiate back to your original topic and that this, you know, this, these wallets are for you, not for large data aggregators and big tech. And the other part, which we always again speaking of myopic, you know, personal wallets are like, okay and important, but there's a vast market opportunity with business to business interactions where they need the same kinds of guarantees, confidentiality, authentic data. They're, you know, that's a huge market where everybody's kind of enamored with the fancy little app on the phone, but organizations need these capabilities. Standard disclaimer about my notes, you please jump in and correct or add or other things that I miss. I am intending to take notes as sort of clearly and concisely as I can, but I'm gonna do a poor job. So please, please jump in if I do a poor job or something. Thank you, John, for that conversation. There's a couple of things that I pulled out of there. Mike, can I pick on you a little bit to talk about your comment in the chat? He's either looking for the mute button or has decided no. That's okay, he's getting lots of thumbs up. He said, wallets broadly is better understood, but will eventually be limiting. Agent is going to get co-opted by AI applications. And I think that that was a wise comment there. I think the term agent has a little bit been skating to where the puck is going, not necessarily where the puck is, but we might be fighting an uphill battle there just because of the lack of understandability and having to explain it every time may not be worth it. And it might be worth having that conversation later as people are familiar enough with wallets that they understand perhaps the difference and then not really worry about that. Yeah. Sorry, I got distracted for a second there, Sam, but yeah, you basically summarized and hit the nail on the head in regards to my comments. So thank you. Helen, you pasted the link to the Hyperledger announcement for Aries. Is there anything you want to draw out from there in particular? Yeah, well, you know, I just popped it in there just for us to remember kind of where Aries came from and what the initial goal was. I mean, I appreciate Alex's thoughts on adoption of the tech because I think that's incredibly important. I also think it's incredibly important to represent what this project can do to the developers and the companies and the maintainers and contributors of this project. Like if they see Aries as just a wallet, will they bypass all the other stuff that's, you know, has been made possible by the development of this project? I mean, a lot of the things, you know, weren't just a twinkle in the eye when Aries has now, you know, when we announced it. And I think that, yeah, just taking a look at where we came from and what the, you know, the goal was of the project. You know, we talked about this on the last call. Do we need to update what the goals of this project are? Do we need to clarify or modify some of these descriptions that are in this blog and new channels? But there's so much here that's, you know, from a non-technical, you know, from a layman's eye, it's, you know, there's so much here that's not wallet stuff. And I would hate for it to get buried or lost or not supported or not, you know, kind of on that, that trajectory of growth and development if, you know, we were to paint, you know, try to paint more broad strokes than maybe as appropriate. Thanks, Helen. Ken, your hand is up. Yeah, I wanted to draw out the thought that not all agents or wallets are representing people. Some of them do, but some of them represent the cloud agents, for instance, that might represent a government or a business or a small business or enterprise. Do they want to have their, you know, the government wallet or is it a government agent that represents them? So looking at it, not to ignore the individual aspect and the privacy preservation and so forth, but there are also businesses and governments and other organizations that might be represented as well. Thanks, Ken. Alex. Yeah, just in support of what Helen says, agreed. My suggestion is not in the context of what Aries is and how we describe it for specific about wallet versus agents and how we communicate up the chain and make that an approachable concept. So for Aries, yeah, I completely agree. There's much more to it. And that's, I think that's a fascinating part is picking those elements out and being able to communicate out in an approachable way what makes this work special in all its facets. So completely agree on that. One of the things that's showing up on my brain here is that even if we don't use different terms, we might change how we convey them to people. Like for example, if someone says, well, what's an agent? You can say, well, it's a smart wallet or it's a wallet with extras or things like that, which I think would be really interesting. Keep it coming guys, this is great. I mean, you can use Aries to build a quote unquote wallet but you need all the other capabilities to be able to make, to bring that alive. Like so issuing and verifying and holding as an organization, supporting different protocols and credential formats for different use cases. Like it's the web of interactions. Don't have enough words in English, it's the problem. I feel like we don't have enough words to mean snow, but in the right ways to talk about this concept. Warren. Yeah, I think the terms that we use are important but I think also the context in which we use them matters too. I like, we tend to think about, I think a wallet is something which is a way of managing our keys as well as a way of managing our, the storage of our credentials. And those are actually two separate functions, right? So there's key management and there's credential storage management. And then agents which represent the rich interactions, some of which involve that the key stores and the credential stores. But from a popular perspective or a broad perspective, I think that using the term wallet and overloading it is okay depending on the perspective. And going back to the, I thought the summary that you made, I'm sorry, I've forgotten who made the original comment but you summarize quite well about not treating a web browser as like a TLS negotiation thing. That's not how we think of it. It just happens to be an artifact of what a web browser does. And similarly, it has a notion, which again, users don't know about called a user agent. It is an agent, but that's not how people talk about it from a like a high level abstraction perspective. And so I think it's very dependent on the context. And I think that we need to be cognizant of that. And again, at a technical level, I think we can be a little bit more precise. There are words that we can use to describe, okay, we've got key management, we've got credential management, we've got protocols for interaction. And sometimes we group those things together and call them wallet, but it's not precise. And that's okay. Well, there's a company in there. Thank you, Warren. Steve, you're next. Yeah, no, this is an interesting discussion. I was contemplating Mike's comments about AIs and wallets. Back in the day, as a kid, I'd call in the radio station and I'd try to win a free vinyl record. So that'll tell you how old I am, meaning I'm a kid today. The cool kids are doing it today too, Steve. You're fine. That's right. So what the purpose of my call was not to give them my identity, it was not to make a call per se. My purpose was to get an album. So I can see that looking at combining AIs and wallets, my purpose may be today to tell my AI when the tickets are on sale, be first in line and get me one. And so the purpose, if you look at the purpose of whatever application that might become, it's not so much identity, it's not so much connection, it's the combination of all those things. And I think as we start to look at what's a wallet, what's an agent and those broader terms, I think we're gonna find additional connection points that make what we're building. We're gonna be able to let other developers and designers see what we're doing in a different light and be attracted to it more. Thank you, Steve. I mean, it's communicating to different audiences. So that kind of structure of my talks, I talk about why. So what are the symptoms we're experiencing as people, as organizations building systems? We're experiencing theft and phishing and spam and counterfeiting as individuals, we all relate to that. Building complex systems and interact with many different organizations is an N squared problem. So that's hard. So what do we wanna do? What do we wanna do? So we wanna have these confidential protocol based interactions and then how do we do that? That's what Steve was just talking about here, the building blocks, but the point being that it's, what can I do? Like I don't, you know, people think about what's the task I'm trying to accomplish and then they open the app or they go to the service. So we can expand what the wallet does as we have people using them to accomplish the task they need to do. Thank you. I've heard something that I didn't anticipate here today. I think I've heard that being precise about the term is it nearly as important as we think it is? And that if it helps people understand if we use different terms in different contexts, maybe in business contexts, we tend to lean into agent because it's what they say as a starter or is what they think about from an organization perspective but from a personal perspective, we tend to start from wallets because that's where people come from, then that's okay. And then what we get to then explain is what the overloading or the extras or the smartness actually comes from as part of our project. And I think that if we attempt to explain it in that way, it can make it more approachable but also highlight the differences between, for example, an application built on Aries that has the ability to use the question answer protocol and basic message another non-wallet type of protocols can help differentiate, for example, between something that we're building and something that is strictly a crypto wallet, for example, whose goal is cryptocurrency management. And so that's, anyway, the whole lack of precision might be good thing is actually something that I didn't expect to hear today but I find super insightful. We have like three minutes left. Any sort of closing thoughts or realizations that others wanna share? Alex. Just a quick one, Sam, I think completely agree and that's not to negate the importance at a technical level of that precision. Like within our community, in our discussions, we need that precision in order to execute on some of these beautiful ideas, but not bad. And as a question of adoption, when there's all this work happening worldwide, when there's about to become a de facto standard through whatever means, it's about understanding and it's about, I don't think it would aim necessarily this way or that we should, but a good enough solution that's in enough places often wins and history's got many examples of when the best technical solution didn't win out because it didn't have the traction for any number of good reasons. So I'm really curious always from what I can bring to it is it builds on top of that beautiful technical precision but then it makes it approachable, makes it understandable, makes it tied to real things people are trying to solve now and then it expands once that critical mass, the tipping point has been reached, the other parts can be realized as well but none of it can be realized with all the great attention in the world if something else wins out in the meantime because it answers the problems now and it's understandable now. I think it's an ongoing, I think it's a really good tension but it's one to explore further. I appreciate that. We have about one minute left. We haven't, I haven't heard anything today from Timo. Can I bother you for a quick thought about how you think of all this? Yeah, sure. I'm not as clear today so I haven't shared my opinion but I think it makes sense. I think especially the last thing you said on like that term doesn't really matter and that overloading is okay. I think that makes a lot of sense so that maybe this question isn't as important as we portray it to be. I think Alex and I think the gentleman at the beginning that pointed out that you can build things with Aries now. You can deliver stuff now. The other stuff is later. Right, and then that's okay. And then people aren't gonna be bothered by the fact that like suddenly we might be describing things with a different term or adding smart to it or something is not that much of an issue. So thank you. I apologize for springing that on you Timo but I appreciate it. And we didn't hear from others. I'm a little bit bummed throughout the time but I very much appreciate the conversation today and it's helped me understand a lot. These conversations are sometimes a little squishy because they're not very technical but I think they're overall very useful and so I appreciate everyone being here. I hope your week is a great one and please speak up in the channels or in other things or in topics in future meetings and we can get things discussed that you think are important. I very much appreciate everyone's involvement and I hope you have a great week. Thanks for your hosting, Sam. Thanks. Thanks, Sam. Thank you. Thanks everyone. Thanks folks. Thanks, bye.