 afternoon and good evening, everybody. Welcome to this Hyperledger meetup and, well, small seminar, I would say. Today, we're gonna take a look on a very, very tricky topic and that's blockchain and regulation, which is, yeah, basically, you know, I mean, pretty challenging all over the world. We're gonna take a look on one specific aspect and that's mostly the regulation on blockchain, which is gonna discuss two parts. That's one is Mika and the second one is data regulation, again, mostly in the EU. Basically, if it's an EU regulation, again, it's pretty tricky, even in the EU, but the rest of the world as well. We got at the moment like two new regulations. I would say one is Mika marketing, crypto asset regulation, and the second one is the DLT pilot regime. And of course, on the EU market, we got like the pan-European blockchain regulatory sandbox as well. But besides these upcoming regulations, a lot of like data protection regulation, like GDPR or European Data Act or European Data Governance Act, they are not so much blockchain specific, but the problem is if somebody, basically a blockchain developer or architect, then these regulations have some requirements that are taken to implement. And of course, there's a discussion on like DAO and DeFi. There will be something with that probably in like three years. We have very competent speakers today from the European Blockchain Association, from Perfinal Technologies and from the Hyperledger Foundation as well. So our agenda for today is the following. I just have this welcome speech. It's five minutes, but as I see it's just less than five minutes. Following this welcome speech, we will have a general overview on Mica, on marketing crypto asset regulation. It's from Mate, from Perfinal Technologies. And then we will have a small break after that. So we don't want to have like a big break in the middle of the meetup. We will surely have a big Q&A and discussion session at the end, but we will have like a five minutes break after this Mica presentation. So we can answer like three selected questions for Mica, basically, and then again for more questions or for like discussion that will require more time. So we can have a bigger session at the end. After this small question break, then Thomas will practically make an introduction for the panelists. And we will have a very interesting fireside chat on Mica and again on different data regulation, how these regulations practically impact Hyperledger and consortium blockchain networks from Erwin and from Eugenio. And then after this at the end, we can have like a bigger question, questions as answers and again, it can be like a general discussion as well. And at the end, we will have a wrap up. I mean, I would say the wrap up is probably like delivered by all of the participants. So that's the plan for today. And then we will just start with the first presentation that will be a general overview on Mica from Mate and then I just stopped sharing my screen and Mate, the floor is yours. Thank you very much, Daniel, welcome everyone in this session. Let me share my screen and please give me some confirmation if it works all right. Yes, it looks good. Thank you very much. Let me start the presentation there. And there we go. Looks good? Yeah, it looks good. Thank you very much. Yeah, indeed. All right. Thank you very much, Daniel, for the intro. My name is Mati Brezovsky. I'm CEO and founder of Perfinat. With Perfinat, and I myself personally, we are generally sitting at the place where we usually bridge innovative ideas with online and technical solution. But now as the regulation evolves, we are also looking at regulated solution. Perfinat by default, we have created a core banking system with a vision to create an efficient and powerful solution for email institutions. And within that system fits virtual account management as the core proposition. And in this presentation, I will talk about that how Mika is basically approaching. And yeah, to tell you the truth, it's not always easy to talk about regulation in an interesting way. So how I approach this particular topic is a little bit from the context and practical side. So since we have a global audience here today, what I really want to share with you guys is that what is the ideology behind Mika? How it's actually coming to effect? What are the key concerns of Mika as a regulation? And at the end, I will also show you some two practical examples that basically covering a blueprint of launching something under Mika as the regulation evolves. During the presentation, I'm going to approach from like a top down approach. So I will put the whole cryptocurrency phenomenon into perspective. I will try to highlight on the real innovation that is happening around cryptocurrencies from technical perspective. And then I will tell you a little bit about Mika, what are the key aspects of it and what are the key topics that Mika is covering. And then I will show you a blueprint of a Mika compliant crypto bank. And I will show you that how a Mika compliant stable coin issuer should look like once the regulation are actually in practice. So yeah, let's jump right into it. Please feel free to drop your questions into the chat as Dania has mentioned. We are going to have some questions, question Q&A session after the presentation. So I will try to get as much answers as I can. For you guys, just to put this closure, I'm not a lawyer. I'm more like a financial and business guy. But maybe that might be even better position to present to Mika about because eventually we just have to understand what Mika is all about. So that's what I will try to do here today. So yeah, topic number one. There is this phenomenon that I call monetary metamorphosis. This is basically how the traditional banking space shifts into a digital form. There are many occasions and proof how it's happening. But I think the most significant part that's changing in the financial landscape is that the type of issuers and the type of assets that look like currency and act like currency is changing significantly. So let's say, if you just roll back the time with like a hundred years, what money was about is everything about money issued by central entities, central banks especially. That's what we have grown up with. That's how our fathers grow up with, their parents grow up with. And what has changed in the last 10 years, especially with the issuers of Bitcoin is that anybody can kind of issue money-like assets due to the technological advancement and that money-like assets can be saved just like as money issued by centralized entities. There was this kind of middle ground in the meantime where Imani came into the picture. Imani is basically the regulation for PayPal-like operations in the EU. In the EU, the sort of virtual digital currency issuance has been regulated in the mid-2010s. And we have seen big new banks emerging from this regulation like transfer rise or why those parties are now globally global entities. And now they are operating at banks, but it started as like a virtual electronic money issuers. The whole idea behind that was that they haven't moved their in-house assets with the actual banking system. They had like an internal ledger where they kept the client holdings as virtual accounts and they operated every transaction within the house virtually. So that mean they could offer pre-transaction across parties and free conversion between fiat currencies. That was their proposition. Just like, for example, PayPal, which started in the 2000s and they offered free transaction between parties and you could use our email because whatever you transacted with PayPal at that time that didn't touch the actual banking system if it was in-house it was just a real location between assets internally. Jumped a little bit too ahead but our focus right now is that cryptocurrencies are basically have been issued by all sorts of entities, businesses, startups, individuals in the last 10 years. And the features that people bring into cryptocurrencies has also evolved. So those are sometimes really similar to money. Sometimes it doesn't look like money but has money like features. One thing is sure that you can attract almost any kind of features to these kind of assets. And that's what we have experienced in the 2016 and 70s when people discovered the fact that yes, startups can fundraise with cryptocurrencies. Globally, they issued a token for the future benefits of the platform, which was fine. They issued this utility kind of tokens but then they discovered that, oh yeah, we can actually attract some profit resharing mechanisms to it. So, oh yeah, now we are stepping into dividend kind of distributions. So all of these have become securities. So that's when everybody started to ban them. But since the innovation there and there is like still big technical benefits of applying blockchain technology, those assets have stayed. The technology has stayed, the issuer has stayed. What Mika is all about is to regulate the type of assets which are most common, we can say in this particular operation and more similar to how already existing money systems are working. So that's gonna be really important later. So yeah, the whole takeaway here, the type of money and the issuers of money is changing. It's gonna be much more diverse in the next 10 years. So right now, we already have like 10,000 cryptocurrencies. If you just mentioned that compared to the 180 legal tenders there, that's like exponential growth in the type of assets. So that's gonna probably make the life from selecting the right assets more difficult. But this is probably good for like the FX trading desk and you know the portfolio managers who are all doing their money type of assets. So yeah, within Mika, we are mainly focusing on the two types of assets which we call as cryptocurrencies or these regulated baskets or utility type of assets which are also introduced under the Mika. But yeah, cryptocurrencies, what's good about cryptocurrencies? So we always have this kind of question and the approach that, yeah, decentralization is anarchy, but it's not entirely true. So how I usually approach this topic is that decentralization can be approached from two directive. One is governance, which means that this is making it decentralized. And the other thing is the technical infrastructure is decentralized. When we talk about anarchy type of cryptocurrency, believers or followers, they usually want to get rid of the centralized authorities, the government, the centralized schools and so on. That's there, that kind of stuff has always been there. But if you just think about the technical prospects of cryptocurrencies, they basically and blockchain technology, they brought in a new type of next level of architecture when the operation is not launched by a centralized entity but the decentralized entities, thousands of people, computers working together, making it just much more secure and immutable. If you think about it from financial perspective, if you would like to launch cryptocurrency services, what has really changed is that you have to work with additional layers of technologies that you have to keep secure. So if you just think about centralized banking and digital banking without any cryptocurrencies involved, your application mainly focuses on the first two layer of this technical layer. So customer UI, you have to make sure that you don't, you're not subject to any kind of attacks and threats that affect the customer UI and the customer. The full stack layer, you have to make sure that your application is not something that can be compromised. And there are many, many different ways how you can make sure of that. You can use best practices in developing the solution, but there are also penetration tests, security tests, quality assurances that are governing that your application does what it needs to be done. And also if you launch a financial institution, you get your license, you launch a financial institution, you have to prove that you made sure with the regulator that you have taken all the steps necessary in order to make it a secure application. If you want to involve cryptocurrencies, you need to think about two additional layers. You need to think about the network layer. So what are the network that the cryptocurrencies you are gonna offer for your clients is you shouldn't. And on the other hand, you have to make sure that the smart contracts or the application that they're governing, the crypto assets are secure as possible. So, and basically that's the reason why we also need Mica is to make sure that you don't only keep your eyes on the first layer as an issuer, but you only have to keep your eyes on the underlying layers of the technology. And have to make sure that your proposed operation works just as secure as you would operate with the address. So yeah, what's new with Mica? Mica regulation, markets and crypto asset regulation. I would like to say that basically nothing new is here that we can see. That's why I put the title as all the binding new battle because what Mica is all about is basically bringing the same level of security to the same type of assets used by the customers. And when we think about regulation, we often think that it's just complicated stuff even more than it's already is. Regulation is ultimately is there to protect the customers. And Mica is basically would like to govern the way how entities issue these assets to the public within the European boundaries. So, and on that note, that's something that has already been there. So when you launch financial services, you have the regulation that you have to abide by because you're engaging with customers. If you launch investment services or you launch through an IPO, you launch your own stock or share, then there are the regulations for that. And Mica is basically treating cryptocurrencies as people treat them. So they keep them as financial instruments. And they are basically bringing the same ideas, the same type of how to say security expectations to the issuers that they actually bring to other financial instrument issuer companies. But since the regulation is already there, it's all about harmonizing regulations. And it's more about, there are some cryptocurrency specific topics that the Mica regulation has to cover. So those are auditions, those are new things. But I can say that the majority of the regulation is basically just bringing the same type of regulation to this new asset class, which we call cryptocurrency. Here I just listed some of the most significant regulations that people know in the EU and the ones that are basically benchmarked when Mica is being created. One thing that we really have to mention is the E-Money regulation. And this is really important from stablecoin perspectives because what Mica says is that whoever issues stablecoins where the collateral is a certain fiat currency, we already have a regulation for that. And that's E-Money regulation. E-Money means digital issuance, digital or electronic money, which where the value is secured by collateral. How most of the stablecoin issuance work, I'm not talking about the algorithmic stablecoins, but the collateral based stablecoins, is that there is a fiat currency bank account somewhere. At least we hope it's there. Issuers are trying to prove that it's there, but we know that the audit somehow was not 100% sure about that, but it was always there, 100% sure. So there is a fiat currency bank account somewhere and there's a blockchain based asset issuance and ERC-20 token somewhere. And the reason why the ERC-20 token is worth one USD because each of the digital, the blockchain with value of the particular token has like collateral 100% backed by within the bank account. So that's how you pack the value into. This is exactly how E-Money works, just not in a decentralized way, just a centralized way. So what Mika says that we already have E-Money regulation, use case is the same fiat collateral as this digital money. So basically every stablecoin issuance, we issue fiat currency, a single fiat currency backed stablecoin. They just have to go through the E-Money license, have to make sure that blockchain operation works fine and then they can launch their project. The other significant regulation is the MIFID, which is really important because since with cryptocurrencies and on blockchain, you can basically attach any kind of feature into the asset that you're issuing. You can really easily attach security like features to your assets. So what if we actually just had a nice workshop with the financial institution recently where we have listed the 25 features that cryptocurrencies can be attached to. We have issued, we have listed the issuance features, the circulation features, the profit ratio, the profit reallocation features and utility features. There are many ways how you can do this. And what we have discovered is basically what's the expectation was that if you just pick a cryptocurrency out of the top 200 cryptocurrencies, for example, out there, there's a really big chance that, although it might seem like a utility token, for example, the one issued by Decentraland, which is like a gaming token, it doesn't look harmful at all. But out of the 25 features, it might have four or five features which look like security. So the ultimate direction is that if it has security type of features, then it basically accesses security so it doesn't even fall under MICA. It's gonna fall under the MIFID regulation, which is the existing security regulation in the EU. So it's really important to think about MICA and the whole regulation is that it doesn't really say what you see about the cryptocurrency, what it is. So you can really type it. It's all about the what kind of features does the specific cryptocurrency has because the features that are attached to the cryptocurrency by the issuer is gonna determine the what kind of asset is this. Here we have a little bit more detail on the type of assets and the cryptocurrency service providers that MICA is introducing. And it's also really important that MICA is basically classifying and specifying use cases. So there are regulatory bodies, for example, in Switzerland or even the UK is a bit more similar to it, that they try to define the regulation in a case-by-case basis. So you submit your project, your workflows, your business flows into FEMA in Switzerland and then FEMA says, hey, yeah, okay, based on this, you look like a secretary, so you have to go through this regulation. MICA is the other way around. So how MICA works is that MICA is classifying the type of assets, the tokens that you issue and the services that you provide based on predefined current specifications. So MICA says that this is the three type of token that you can issue. And this is how it works and this is how these tokens are determined and these are the features attached to these tokens. And if you want to introduce additional features, you have to really careful about that because then you might fall under recognition that you are doing something else that you initially applied for. This is also true for crypto asset service providers. So MICA is specifying that what kind of service requires what kind of regulation or what kind of license in order to operate. So let's say that you would like to launch, for example, a cryptocurrency trading platforms where people can hold their assets, they can change it from fiat to crypto and then change it across themself through like an open order matching protocol. Then you basically gonna need at least probably three type of licenses. So you need to have the custody and administration of cryptocurrency. So that's how you can hold cryptocurrency on behalf of clients. Then you need an exchange crypto to fiat currency. Then you need the exchange crypto to crypto license. And then you also need operating a trading platform license. So that means if you operate four type of services, then you need four type of application or within the one application you have to reflect that how you meet that four type of application that you're actually gonna apply to. So that's about the service providers and the token classifications. One really important factor is that I will bring traditional assets into the cryptocurrency space. So the Imani token I already mentioned, Imani token is basically the Mika version of stable coins backed by one single fiat currency. And that's also the definition. So already, you already has the Imani regulation which is loud and clear. Everybody can research it. They can throw the thousands, even 10,000 pages of expectation what they should actually do in order to have like an Imani license. The addition into it is that you basically issue Imani but you do it in a tokenized, decentralized based way. So you're gonna have to cover the decentralized part too. So one thing might be easy actually for existing Imani issuers to launch stable coin on the blockchain because they already have the Imani license. So they just need the Mika clearance after that. But if you would like to launch like a new stable coin and you want to serve European customers, what you need to do is you have to prepare for an Imani license. And you also have to prepare for the Mika clearance regarding to issuing a Euro, USD, whatever stable coin. So it's gonna get more complicated but it's also gonna be a theater that not everybody's gonna be able to do that because Imani license is not a trivia. So it requires lots of organizational, prudential, settlement kind of internal ledger kind of security protocols to be had that you need to abide by. So that's about Imani token and the other asset which is, which is I think it's more like on the innovation side is the asset reference tokens and the asset reference token is also a definition but it's actually a new type of assets in the financial regulation within EU. Asset reference tokens basically means any kind of collateralized asset which is not linked to one particular fiat currency. So if you are thinking about stable coins, you think about, you just take out from the group the fiat back once, single fiat back once, you take it away and whatever else can fit into the asset reference tokens. And there you can issue commodities like goldback cryptocurrency, there you can have like basket of cryptocurrencies. So even you can put together four fiat currencies and issue a token as a reference asset into it. And this is basically the idea how Facebook wanted to launch Libra or DM, whatever we call it. So now that particular project, that is gonna be available from legal perspective to launch in the EU. And this is also a certain innovation here for such clearance. So we can expect many kinds of different baskets of assets, mix of commodity and fiat currency because they would be able to do that. Also what Mikasa says is whatever else is under other category, including utility tokens. So those are, since it's not really related to a particular asset already existing in a financial structure, they have to be registered but you have to, but you have the more freedom on how you do that and less regulation or expectation. But the general idea is that if an asset functions like something, so like a security, then it should be treated as a security. So that's basically, the EU also has the DAT regime which is all about issuing securities on blockchain and managing securities through living security, this kind of stuff. Those are not subject to Mica, also CBDCs and not subject to Mica. So central banks are not subject to Mica. So we have to be clear that the Mica regulation is all about financial institutions and businesses launching digital cryptocurrencies. So that's what the scope is. Regarding to the timeline, we are right now in Q1. So Mica, there are still many questions around Mica and practical guidances that has to be issued. So Mica right now is continuing, I mean, the European Commission and the EBAs, they are providing guidance and questionaries and consultations, at least 31, 30 has been out there already. So they are right now gathering lots of market feedback and they are finalizing what needs to be exactly. And that's what also the market is waiting for. So based on our service with banks and legal firms, what we experienced right now is that Mica would probably become more and more interesting and more and more news. We come about it as we approach Q2 because for that time, most of the guides will be ready. So people will actually know what needs to be done in order to apply to Mica clearance. And the first deadline of going live is actually June 2024. So that's when the Imani token regulation and the asset reference token regulation goes live. And this also represents that these two asset types are basically one of the most significant areas that Mica wants to cover. Especially because of fiat-backed stablecoins, that's already in circulation. So they want to protect the customers against uncorralized assets, which are not securely issued. And then in December, we have the deadline for everyone else. For all the utility token issuers, the custody providers, trading platform operators, exchange of crypto assets, executing orders of crypto assets. This is like portfolio management related things. There is also a transition period that needs to be done. So in order to have a Mica regulated issuance, you will be able to apply after June. Or if you want to provide a service, you will be able to apply after December. This mainly refers to new kind of services or new kind of assets issued under Mica, or asset issuance, service relaunch, this kind of stuff. But already existing providers who have either have their existing operation, or they already have a license, for example, in France or Mata, they are going to have two year, almost two year, one and a half year, something like that, transition period. So they will have some time, so they don't have to shut down at June. Or they don't have to shut down with the exchanges at December. They have to make sure that if they have already some sort of license, they are able to operate with that until July, 2026. So that's the latest time when they have to get the Mica clearance. Yes, so right now, I'm overstepping a little bit probably on my time, so I will just wrap it up with two examples. I don't want to get into the full details of it. I just wanted to give a little overview about the complexity what a crypto bank should expect, and the EMT issuer should expect. A crypto bank is basically a provider, maybe, and already existing banks who would like large crypto services. And what they need is basically a secure custody provider. So what comes into the balance sheet and what has to be managed is basically the crypto assets. Those are completely new in 99% of the financial institutions. So custody is a question. Whether they build it themselves or use an external custody or a white labor solution, they are going to have to make sure that the custody of the assets are secure as much as they can. But since the operation of transactions, it's already operating in a virtual space. So if you think about Coinbase or Binance, once they transfer or convert assets from crypto to crypto, there is no actual crypto movement. So that's why it's free. That's why it's cheap. So what they need to basically avoid all the on-chain transaction fees is a certain virtual management system. People call it treasury system. People call it internal ledger of crypto balances. This is basically the place where the financial institution operator has a client-level breakdown of assets because in the custody, they have aggregated accounts. So they have all the crypto assets in a couple of accounts. So they don't do customer segregation because if they would do them, they would just have lots of transaction fees added to them. So one thing is changing significantly is that since cryptocurrency exchanges already operate this way, and they operate it in the EU. But what we change is how secure and how transparent and how audible is their internal ledger and how securely transact on behalf of clients. That's even between clients, but also between the company and the clients because they really have to make sure that they keep a really strict rules and operations with four-eye principles, multiple approvals, multiple signatures to make sure that there is not happening an unapproved movement of assets that is not subject to the actual operational structure. So this is basically to avoid issues like what happened with FTX, where you basically just they use the client money, they moved it from the virtual management system into an external account, they invested it. So basically the collateral behind the client funds have been pro-duo-lently used. So this is something that has to be avoided. This is basically the most significant change. In addition to other compliance rules that has to be met with EMS, you have to implement the travel rule, which is another little bit smaller regulation, but you have to keep track of the information of the transactions within the EU. The last piece that I wanted to show you guys is a blueprint of an EMT issuer, an E-money token issuer. This is basically really similar how E-money providers are working nowadays. So like I said, how they work is that there's always like a custody account where they keep the collateral. So in that note, it's like a fiat currency. In case of an E-money institution, it has to be a credit institution, so a licensed bank in order to be a partner of an E-money provider. And they have to make sure that the collateral management is always 100% strict. So even if there's a transaction with like a few seconds of delay, they have to make sure that they account it at the right ownership and the right legal structure. So it's not about, so once they basically create the end of year or end of day or end of week reports, they have to make sure that they have a 100% clear view of who owns what kind of assets within their ledger. So that's really important. But they need to also do is they need to integrate with the cryptocurrency part. So they're gonna need like extend a crypto custody where they keep the crypto assets. But what they also need to do alongside their existing stablecoin E-money token management system is they need to have like a completely synchronized on-chain token issuance and management system because whatever they do on-chain with the transaction they have to make sure that they have their own 100% sure internal balance and record of that transactions. And they also have to make sure that nothing happens on-chain that is not approved by the specific financial operations structure it has. So the already existing operation, high E-money token issuance are now operating. They're gonna have to make sure that their on-chain asset management is also 100% sure. And they have to prove it too towards the regulators. How to prove it? It's a good question. So we are in discussion with a couple of central banks on what they expect regarding to security measures or how they basically evaluate an application. One thing is sure that the central banks we also, because central banks or other regulatory but these will be the ones who basically approve micro applications at the end. And they have to make sure that they have the tools and they have the know-how in-house which allows them to understand not just the documentation but the security parts. I'm not saying that the regulators are gonna become security auditors but they are kind of already hiring people who can read smart contracts and understand what's actually in the smart contract operation. So, and there are many, many courses going on where central banks are actually trying to understand about the crypto and the regulators as much as they can. So they are kind of preparing for the regulatory part. And yeah, just a little bit of conclusion out there. I think one thing will be really interesting in the EU and this is also something that is most interesting from any global audience would like to launch crypto services in the EU is that which jurisdictions are going to be the one who basically front-run this opportunity of becoming a regulatory powerhouse, a power country of cryptocurrency operations because just like what happened with the E-Money regulation almost 10 years ago, there were like regions in the EU which kind of evolved as the E-Money hubs. We can talk about Estonia, Lithuania, UK, now the Benoist countries are picking up but this is also a chance for any country within the EU to become that absolutely. Of course, there are countries like France or Malta or even Estonia who already has some crypto regulation in existence as we can say maybe as a pilot run but there will be the countries who will basically strategically choose that they want to be maybe Portugal, they want to be the hub of the Mika applications and that's I think it can be a really good opportunity for any countries in the EU but I'm of course not the one who helps them I mean to decide that but that is gonna be interesting to see in the next coming years. But yeah, thank you very much and happy to have any questions. I hope I can answer them. Yeah, great, thanks a lot Mate and since we're a little bit over time let's have one question and then let's move on with our fireside chat and of course we're gonna have a larger Q&A at the end. Does anybody have a question for Mate on our panelists? Oh, I see there's one question from Jim. I see one, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I can take it's either separate standard regulations for customer service providers. Yeah, actually the customer service providers falling under the managing crypto assets on behalf of clients on that note you can think about retail kind of bank account management but you can also think about B2B kind of account management as far as I understand. So custody providers have to be regulated in the EU and there are also regulations that for example, certain token issuers they have to keep their reserves as at regulated crypto custody as so there is even connection between the token issuers and the service providers in the regulation and that's something that can be interesting for sure. All right, that's great. Thank you Mate and thank you Jim also for the question. So we're gonna open the floor for more questions later on but first of all, let me also say thank you from my side for joining us and welcome to the fireside chat which is the next section of our session today. So as EU markets will as EU marketing crypto assets and they take coming to effects our panelists will examine their influence on token and blockchain based services and platforms. My name is Tomas and I'm an ecosystem manager at the Hyperledger Foundation and today it's my pleasure to introduce our great panelists. Joining us are Erwin Voloder who's serving as a head of policy at European Blockchain Association and Elginio Reginini who is serving as a head of growth at the European Blockchain Association. Elginio is also a research fellow with Digital Euro Association and an expert panel member at EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum. Thank you so much Erwin and Elginio for being here today and to share your expertise with us. Very much looking forward to this discussion. Just in terms of a structure we'll begin the overview of a few regulatory touchpoints followed by the discussion of the rather recently released EU Blockchain Manifesto and when Erwin and Elginio will be talking about it I'll also add it to the chat here so you can have a look yourself as well. And of course at the end we'll open the floor to the questions from the audience. So without further ado, Erwin and Elginio, the floor is yours. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. I'm gonna try to maybe share my screen also because they wanted to try to share the slide that we prepared right now. Okay, can you see our screen? Yes, yes, we can see it. Okay, great. Erwin, I think you're muted. You're muted. You wanted to try to start maybe. Wonderful, can you hear me now? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Great, great, okay, okay. So to start, I'm gonna try to provide a very high level overview of several of these regulations here and broadly we've kind of categorized them into different areas specifically around data regulation and touch points with financial services and then obviously around digital identity. So bear with me as I make my way through these as quickly as I can. I'm sure many of you are already familiar with GDPR, the General Data Protection Regulation. It's been implemented in the EU since about 2018. Basically, aimed at giving individuals greater control over their data, over their personal data. It regulates how organizations, for example, they collect, they process, store and then they can transfer that kind of data. It also has strict requirements obviously for obtaining consent, what constitutes transparent data processing practices, notifying authorities about data breaches and it also has hefty fines and penalties that you can incur for non-compliance, right? The reason being is that private data, so personal data PII, it's a non-rival good. It's considered a non-rival good in Europe and we'll get to the differences between that and the data act shortly. One thing the GDPR also does is it deals or rather it doesn't answer outstanding questions, also with regards to what may or may not be considered data minimization techniques and then these can also be in concert with what we use in distributed ledger technology, right? So the Article 29 Working Party didn't really come to an agreement on whether or not the outstanding hash and a transaction, for example, constitutes personal data processing, right? Or whether or not this could lead to some form of joint controllership with regards to a blockchain transaction. The GDPR is up for view next year, likely, given the developments also in the European Digital Wallet, which you genuinely will speak with shortly and with the EIDES revision, the legislator is likely gonna have to come to some determination on this or at the very least begin to think a little bit deeper about selective disclosure, data minimization and what may or may not actually constitute full or partial anonymity and how this may be compliant with data processing, personal data processing in the future. The Data Act, on the other hand, so the Data Act's fairly recent. It entered into, rather it was adopted and published in the official journal in November and in December of last year and it basically covers different contexts. So it allows for the mandatory access of data, for example, generated by connective devices. So those that are subject to the data sharing obligations within the data sharing agreements under the Data Act. And then this has to do with also consumers, businesses and public authorities. It deals with data sharing between SMEs. So when SMEs are involved in data processing services, this includes things like switching, international transfer of non-personal data and things like interoperability. As a side note, from an association perspective, we dealt a lot with the Data Act over the course of the legislative period and we engaged heavily in the political trilogues. And this is my own reading of the Data Act and I've raised this with regulators is that the terms interoperability and standardization are used almost interchangeably throughout the text. And they don't have the same practical or functional equivalence when you actually look at it from a market perspective. And this is where the industry was also kind of raising questions with regards to the false equivalency or potential false equivalency that was raised there. So basically the data processing services, they intend to increase the data availability and facilitate different kinds of data sharing among players. So like from a B2C perspective, a B2B perspective and even a B2G perspective. So we're talking about the Data Act can be seen as like a horizontal or what's called a horizontal legislation, right? Because it covers different aspects that are related to data sharing. So everything from the connected devices. So think like IoT all the way to mandatory B2G sharing in very exceptional circumstances. And then it tries to also address things like contractual imbalances and data sharing contracts, relations to cloud switching, and again international transfers of non-personal data or interoperability. On the financial services side, I'm not gonna get into Mika because Matthew did an excellent job of providing an overview. So I'll jump right into the IoT pilot regime. You can think of this as basically the EU's pilot regime for market infrastructures that are based on distributed ledgers. So it's effectively a regulatory sandbox. It allows eligible firms and there's different qualities of those or different categories of those rather to apply to operate either like a DLT based trading facility or a type of settlement system for financial instruments, right? And then this is to be done within a flexible kind of flexible regulatory environment. So you have different kinds of eligibility. So you have authorized investment firms and market operators. So they can apply for what's operating a DLT MTS. So a DLT multilateral trading facility. You'll have authorized CSDs. So central securities depositories, they can apply to operate a DLT security settlement system. So a DLT TSS or pardon me, a DLT SS. And then those two groups together can apply to operate a combined DLT SS and DLT MTF. So it becomes a DLT TSS. There's a lot of acronyms at play here. Essentially, it gives them exemptions for things like the CSD and MIFID for a period of several years. It allows them to plug and play with different types of DLT market infrastructures, including development of tokenized securities and digitally native securities. And then it allows them to apply for specific exemptions from those general regulations. So like, if you're subject to regulations that are applicable to equivalent market infrastructures, then you can request to have those exemptions put in place. For the DLT TSSs, so the trading and settlement systems, there's really no traditional equivalent to that. So they're subject to rules that are applicable to both the DLT MTFs and the SSs. So there's a few exemptions, primarily to avoid any overlap. You may also have exemptions for, for example, certain types of specified requirements under the general regulatory framework, in cases where those requirements are not, are not compatible or incompatible with the proposed DLT use case. Each type of these exemptions is granted and it's subject to certain or specific conditions and it's subject to the conditions of the NCA, also in partnership with ESMA or in dialogue with ESMA. So there's, there's gradated steps to this. There's, it's also important to mention that the DLT pilot regime may allow for exemptions to some kind of models where you can provide direct access to retail investors or rather settlement commercial bank money as opposed to central bank money. And so these are, these are other things and specifically the central securities and depositories, they may also apply for exemptions that aren't designated under the settlement finality directive. DORA on the other hand, the Digital Operational Resilience Act, it focuses on a complete other side for financial entities requirements. And this is basically their, their OPSEC and CyberSEC to create a more durable financial ecosystem. So it deals with things like ICT risk management, so internet communication technology risk management, their reporting requirements, how they manage third party supply chain risk, how they conduct intelligence sharing for cyber risks and their risk testing, their digital operational risk testing. So it's basically, it's a regulation that also captures crypto asset service providers, it captures credit institutions, traditional financial companies and it's to strengthen the IT security of those financial entities. And it's basically, like I said, because it also applies to CASPs, it has that linkage to MECA where MECA handles certain, let's say, more governance requirements and capital threshold requirements for issuers, DORA governs the backend, actually the plumbing and how safe the plumbing is. I'll get quickly into EIDIS. For those of you not familiar with EIDIS, it's the EU's electronic identification and authentication regulation. EIDIS was introduced several years ago. It was up for review in 21 or the review was published in 21. Basically, EIDIS covers things like time stamping, email services, the creation, verification and the validation of different certificates for website authentication, different kinds of authentication mechanisms, their levels, their interoperability between member states, the cross-border recognition of these kind of credentials. But what it doesn't do is it doesn't cover the provision of electronic attributes. So for example, medical certificates or professional qualifications and that makes the legal recognition of those a little bit complicated at EU level. It also doesn't enable or control any data that's exchanged in the verification process. But what it does do under the revision now under EIDIS too is it goes a step further by introducing what's known as the European Digital Identity Wallet. And I will let you, Genio, briefly just give an overview of the EUDIW. Well, thank you, Erwin. The European Digital Wallet was probably, as you mentioned, the biggest amendments and in terms of requirements for the European Digital Trust Service Providers. It can be thought as a public open source or a private open-source application which will store private user information in forms of different product archetype, for instance, verifiable credentials. And I would like to focus the attention on two, three main aspects. The first is on the establishment of what's called qualified electronic access stations. Those are essentially additional attributes to, for instance, again, verifiable credentials, documentation, or different kind of tokenization standards to provide a value from the users as from taking from national competent authority in terms of private information from the user itself. These may be issued by a different list of subjects which are generally defined as qualified trust service providers and may have different specific verticals and trusted by different solution providers on supply chain, data traceability, product traceability, tokenization capability in general. Those electronic access stations, let's say, source the gap from the previous legislation to try to provide more data information from the users and treat it in a safe manner by providing to the execution of electronic ledger a surface sovereign agency solutions into the European Union. From like background perspective on the project, the project was led by the division DG Connect at the European Union. And in terms of services, it's really meant to provide a gateway for retail digital trust services in Europe, where it will be probably crossed. Then the second one will be 20. Hello, it's too close. Maybe there is some background, if someone can... Some background. I'll turn it off, I'll give you, sorry about that. Okay, so there is another important angle that I wanted to touch. Additional is the creation of a digital product passport which instead had to make its focus more on a specific B2B services and will be important to store specific product related digital attributes on specific B2B services that would be delivered across Europe. So if we envision the project like the European digital wallet, you may see like a sort of a digital container having different digital product object stored in different digital forms for B2C and B2B services providing the anchorage of different data provision related to the digital object. How these will interact with DLT technology? Well, the regulation is quite neutral. Didn't take specific stands on behalf of the DLT, but when it says to electronic ledgers, it of course, empower the creation of distributed ledger technology, especially when they are provided by qualified trust service providers. Maybe the latest thing that they wanted to mention is that the application will be mandatory by law and provided in form of at least one service provider issued by and certified by a member state or by its own national competent authority. So these will serve also as a creation of ultimate source of trust from the private information which have been anchored into. And if we want to have a look from a more European perspective, we can definitely see that the European digital wallet application will be probably a perfect use case to re-empower the upon European distributed ledger network empowered from the project called the European blockchain service infrastructure. So after these, maybe we can go a little bit more into our association activity advocacy, which led to the initiative supported by the European Commission DGGROW in the creation of the European blockchain manifesto. We as a European blockchain association to add together with other three groups, we decided to draft these important document with the ambitious goal of highlighting the vision of DLT for Europe, essentially across three main pillars, how to support the strategic autonomy of Europe over the revamping of European single market, how we can create and we can support the creation of more social and sustainable data economy also at the global stage and how Europe in having its core, its digital trust services and its common regulatory framework can really support a digital transformation linking real and data economy. These were the great success in terms of engagement with different policy makers and different, let's say European representative in different institutions. And it's a continuous effort that we are currently running in the way of supporting and providing more space to DLT and blockchain in what would be the next legislative period that will start in the second half of the year. We invite you also to look for this manifesto online. We're happy to provide a link in the chat to read it through it specifically. We wanted to give like a concrete use case reference to what are the opportunities provided by DLT technology and if I also recall what was my previous experience within the Hyperledger community, I see a lot of startups and solution provider working on a supply chain solution for traceability, tokenized carbon credits in a lot of solution leveraging IDAS regulation in forms of QDSP attestation. So I see that this piece of this documentation as a sort of empowering a little bit of also what was my experience in the community in the past. I think this kind of documentation can also support the creation of new wave of consortia which may be different structured in a way that to join a common different capability across different service providers rather than focusing on a specific use case and R3 and RD solution. And this could be also a new wave of opportunities for Hyperledger community in Europe. I think we wanted to end our conversation, our fireside chat with some cool question that over which Erwin and I will try to come to some point and also touching on different regulatory landscape and adding some market and experience consideration that come from our activity. We decided to anchor this question over these three points because we believe that EBSI cover the infrastructure point of DLT. So our potentially solution providers which are leveraging Hyperledger solution can anchor to EBSI to European blockchain services at the product level how these can be ensured and this is something that Erwin touched in its opening with reference of the European digital wallet and the digital product passport, especially in the creation of a selective disclosure mechanism that can in some sense balance compliance and privacy needs. And maybe more on the corporate and organizational side, what may be implication for new wave of consortia in the Hyperledger community, specifically also maybe having a look on how DLT and blockchain based communities dals could be potentially regulated in the future. So Erwin, I don't know, maybe we can start from EBSI, right? I think when you see DLT infrastructure developed across many, many member states, the hot, the strong question about how node will be in some sense regulated from data perspective. This is crucial. I think your opening on GDPR was great. And especially when we talk about the public networks, we see that GDPR and data act really affect the permission network, but for permission less than we may have something to discuss here. And this is also probably the right time considering the review of the law. Yeah, I think so with the data act and GDPR, like you face a dichotomy in that the GDP, but the data act technically should only apply in the event of data sharing agreements where two counterparties agree to use the data act for the purposes of data processing. And if this is the case, then certain provisions, specific provisions that also touch on smart contracts are triggered. Like if anyone here is familiar with the data act and they've probably read a thing or two about Article 30, which is in the legalese that's used in the text, it's safe and robust termination, yeah? In colloquially speaking, it's a kill switch. And so how you may conceive of a kill switch that needs to at the same time also have the smart contract ensure archivability and auditability, but then when you dig deeper into the other articles, you see that there also needs to be conformity and there needs to be a consistency in that conformity with the level of the metadata, the reference ontologies, the CSORI, the libraries, but there's no indication in the data act specifically how that's supposed to be achieved, just that it is. With the GDPR perspective, I mean, when you're talking about what kind of data B2B, B2C or C2G data is being processed under the data act, likely these are going to be in permission chains. So just because of the sensitivity of the data in question and the fact that it's supposed to also facilitate the creation of these data spaces, so long as it's not PII we're talking about, it's a different story and you may be able to get around that and there may be ways to do it, but with a public permissionless ledger, try implementing that, you know, I'll give the example of what would we have if we had a reversible Ethereum? Yeah, yeah. Right, a reversible ERC-20 contract or a reversible ERC-721 and what would that look like from a perspective of, for example, chargeback fraud that could be instantiated as a means of market abuse? Regulators are talking a lot about MEV toxic versus non-toxic MEV, but that's a genuine concern when you're talking about public permissionless blockchains and mandating these sort of things. So if there was ostensibly possible, now with the GDPR, because we don't have clarity on these minutiae, but there's the devils in the details, but at the same time you see the commission and the institutions moving towards the creation of certain or elevation of certain credential schema for specific reasons that need to also serve the public interest, then you start to have like a bit of a random walk because you realize that you're circling around the ZKP drain essentially, and one way or another you may end up with that as the form of selective disclosure. So I think will regulators seek to put a clamp on nodes and on node validators? This is the current debate right now in staking and what to do with stash providers and the node operators there and the kind of data that they transmit. I personally hope we don't get into a discussion around whether we need to regulate node operators and validators and make them specifically GDPR compliant because we haven't even solved whether or not the myriad blockchain transactions that have been undertaken under the umbrella of the EU since 2018 may or may not have constituted joint processing of personal data. And if that's the case, who is actively going to enforce that, right? So in fact, I think that, I mean, maybe two, three points which are coming up in my mind. I think on the data sharing side, especially when we deal with solution provider and application level, we can embed data sharing agreement in the process of signing transactions. So I think there is a solution there and there may be not big issues, especially if maybe in the upcoming year, like standardization body at both national and European level will try to come up with a standardize form over that. But yeah, when you talk about the regulatory application to node, that's actually my biggest problem here and the second fear would be how we can enforce this like a sort of binary discussion between the public and private sector for standardization for the smart contract, data sharing agreement, and also to make the regulators understand the difference between technical and non-technical activity poorly in the network so that we can try to provide some vertical more explanation for what could be the use or the implication of GDPR within the RT networks. I mean, when it comes to standardization, at least with the data act, this is going to be left to Etsy and Samsung, right? So they're going to be the ones who have the standardization process for this is supposed to look like and when it gets to the discussion around smart contracts and how standardization is supposed to be impacting smart contracts within the context of those data sharing agreements. I could see them borrowing from ISO W307, for example, and other global initiatives at blockchain standardization that we currently have. So there's a bit of work that can be drawn on from there, but with standardization, you either have top down or bottom up. Top down standardization is for example, this it's what's going to come from the legislator, what's going to come from multilateral fora and that's just going to percolate kind of supply side into the economy to give the reference or you can have standardization that starts as a grassroots. I mean, when you look at the way that certain token standards have been kind of adopted over time. It's been by waiting for it to get to a point of critical mass and then it becomes so ubiquitous that it's just used and it becomes a de facto standard in and of itself. But you also have groups and organizations that are pushing for their own standardization which is standardization by committee. And so you actually have three kinds of standardization. It can either happen organically, it can happen top down or it can happen inorganically by committee but still coming from the market. And these are the three headwinds that we or the three headwinds of three, the three winds that we have blowing in the standardization front. On the point of the underwriting under the data act, I mean, absolutely. If these data sharing agreements are agreed on by two mutually consenting parties, then the smart contracts will need to underwrite the obligations under article 28 under article 30 specifically in order to adhere compliance to those data sharing agreements will stop. But again, I say by the nature of what kind of transactions these will be and what kind of data sharing agreements these will be, they're likely not gonna happen on public permissionless blockchains because the entities that will be conducting these will like, I mean, and this is why we're also here today is it's a high degree of likelihood that these will be within consortia operating in different uses, right? So you're talking about permission ledgers, you're talking about ledgers that operate with state channels and segregation and things like that. And so it's a different discussion than if we were talking about just an open public permissionless blockchain not to say that it isn't going to be cumbersome because the data act stipulates a lot of things but then it kind of leaves it still open and because we don't have those technical standards out yet as to how this is going to be achieved. And so hopefully Etsy and Sun Sun Elect come to something because right now when you read it, it's pretty ambiguous. But I wanted to to to to a light on one positive point. If you see, if you think like from identity perspective work has been done at the international level from ISO and other international technical bodies have reached a degree of harmonization in terms of architecture of the triangle of trust that then has been taken from European project like Etsy to embody these routes of trust for empowering DLT use cases or on Europe. So if my positive takeaway would be let's try to focus on application where the technical community have found like common level of agreement and let's try to elevate those as a trustless support for a DLT infrastructure, right? So on the identity, maybe we have one, we will see. I mean, UI and DPP are like a technical agnostic but they can support those capability in theory. And always on the identity, I think the supporting the extensive usage of selective disclosure mechanism like DKP will help at least to create, to address with data minimization requirement not to become not reaching the goal of having like anonymization because also maybe it's not the ultimate final goal because for some reason the regulator needs to come to specific data sources if needed for public interest but also the specific provision in the ideas of DKP, I think it's important to step towards to a much more privacy and compliance oriented approach. Yeah, I mean, with EBC, at least you see that at least on the level of the credential schema itself like it's transposed W3C standards into the architecture to the reference architecture. It's JSON-LD, it's JOT compatible. So it's got a lot of that going for it. I should also note that so EBC is going through a bit of a transformation period now. We have something called the European Digital Infrastructure Consortia which is basically being led by the Belgian Council presidency is one of their kind of flagship initiatives and you can think of this as like if you were to kick EBC down to the member state level and EBC itself, you could almost think would just be relegated to like a service provider that's providing the open source architecture for these national blockchains to link to and build on to provide their cross border services and things like eGov and public goods and whatever and then EBC itself would be funded from the member states rather than from the commission where EBC is currently funded from. And so this kind of changes the operative dynamic of what EBC may look like in the next two to three years. But another really important thing to note there is that for now, I mean, when you look at the European Digital Wallet like we have four pilots currently I think that are looking at different things, European Digital Wallet consortia then you have the Nordic pilot, I forget the exact name but they're all looking at these different use cases and so one thing with the European Digital Wallet that's also important aside from EBC is that it's eventually also going to need to be able to support the digital euro transactions. And so now when you're talking about selective disclosure and you're talking about the need for data minimization and privacy, this takes on a whole new dimension when you consider that the UDI needs to also be able to facilitate or manage those kinds of payments. You need to be able to pay from your digital wallet for certain services and how that backend architecture is supposed to communicate with itself. I still think is an open question. I would say that the certification of smart contracts at member state level. So I mean, smart contract certification is special over the last 18 months has been an increasingly vocal talking point coming from regulators and you have different. So the French, the ACPR and the AMF they released discussion papers where at different instances they've talked about whether or not we need to borrow from different verticals in the economy. How for example, product lifecycle models are governed and the product standards that are applied to actual physical goods and then do we need to apply these similar things to blockchains in the product liability directive? For example, at EU level, you also see inclusion of requirements for electronic ledgers which could be read to also include blockchains. You see certification or quasi certification also of smart contracts or at least the ring fencing of smart contracts through the data act, if not outright certification. So I think it really depends on what the use case that you're deploying a smart contract for is obviously going to determine the type of certification required. Like if we ever get to a point where we're certifying smart contracts for financial services, it's going to look a hell of a lot different than if you're certifying smart contracts for supply chain. And also, I think that Euro standardization will be much more needed with the engagement of private sector actually to ensure different level of safety and the liability for a different kind of use cases because this is what we are talking about when we are discussing about the product liability directive, right? So if that's more contract software a malfunction in its operation, there may be different terms of liability according to the specific use case that is delivered. But I wanted to focus also maybe to conclude on a little bit on EBSI and EDIC with the dimension of consortia because I think EDIC is probably gonna be the pan-European consortia. And I think something, we thought something very cool to think how technological solution consortia hyperledger based with different service provider maybe someone which is providing inside supply chain capability someone which is providing a finance capability someone which is providing a green certification is the certification could actually leverage these European consortia and essentially enforce cross-member state use cases, right? No, I think, I mean, at least to me the discussion of that is still a little bit premature, although it is coming. I think right now the consortia should be more worried about the data act than they should about although EDIC is in effect a consideration but what they're gonna need to comply with currently is what we already have. That's one on the operation. My question was more from strategic perspective but I see your point, like operationally what do they need to take care of tomorrow to be combined? From a thought exercise perspective I think definitely because EDIC is going to have to encourage the development of these microservices and add-on services to plug into the network itself. And then these also depending on the way that the data is treated and the way it is being utilized may also for example have data act implications or may not or may have other implications because EDIC isn't only going to be, in this far understanding, it isn't only going to be just a simple public goods facing credential management cross-border and what have you. It should have different applicabilities and the whole point for it to scale because now you've kicked it down to the member state level. You need to encourage private sector to provide the services and to build the solutions otherwise it's just, it exists there in a silo and what's the USP? I agree, I agree with you. Eugenia and Erin, sorry to jump in. I just have to raise a cause we have eight minutes left just so we know that we are keeping in mind of everybody's time. Sorry about that. It's a great discussion. I hate to interrupt but just to keep in mind. No problem, no problem. Could we, should we then just conclude with the, Eugenia with the question on the consortia then or do you want to, how do you want to play the last few minutes we can have a little back and forth or maybe even leave some. Maybe there are some Q and A, maybe we are happy to. Yeah, if there's any questions we'd also be happy to answer any questions. Yeah, there's two questions, three I think in the chat. And maybe if you wouldn't mind covering consortia part I think it's great. Eugenia? Yeah, so maybe we can start from this. I think that one main consideration that consortia will need to take care of aside of the operational part that we already discussed with the data act and GDPR potentially addressing. It's more on community development and collaboration more at corporate level because I think if we think back consortia and started in 2017, 16, 18, they let's say born use case oriented as a sort of R&D exercise for different kind of enterprise to share knowledge and develop use cases. Now the technology is reaching a sort of sense of readiness on the market, which may create the opportunity to build let's say cross heterogeneous consortia. And this is something where I was mentioning before having different service provider delivering each a specific mile of the use case, but at the end delivering a better user experience overall in the execution of the consortia itself. And so to as a way to essentially create a hybrid form between consortia and sort of the house, okay, which works in a more permissionless space. And at the same time as a way to embed let's say governance rule within a corporate environment and provide a more comprehensive user experience to customers. And of course, if we think about consortia in this way, there may be of course strategic implication when this consortia can use a network has EBSI or ADIC, we will see in the future as essentially European market verticalization in different markets as a way to scale in numbers of clients and use cases. Because we have seen market in different member states focusing on different use cases, specifically where they have their may own industry strength, sector strength coming from. For instance, I can say that Italy is quite strong and advanced in the banking sector, but maybe I don't know Germany is more empowered in supply chain, okay? And so you can leverage, you can compose your use case connecting different service provider in a DLT consortia and you can actually focus on the specific capability which is delivered by that service provider in that member state node which will be represented within this European infrastructure. Nothing more to add to that point. I think also being mindful of the time, I will just say maybe one thing, you raise a really good point on the comparative advantage. And you see this also, and Mati touched about this earlier on in his intervention, regulators typically have advantages when it comes to or preferences when it comes to what kind of licenses they issue. And you see, for example, with the E-Money institutions, Luxembourg traditionally has always been really strong with AIFs and USETs. Germany, even with regards to the vast licenses that it's issued with Bafin, a lot of custody licenses there, France, we have got exchanges, Spain exchanges. So even with consortia, for example, and the kind of use cases that may or may not be built on these national public infrastructures, not every member state will likely focus on trying to do the same things. They will have to be interoperable with each other to facilitate continuity of business and cross-border services. But let's say the focal point of the development and the way that the ecosystems develop within those member states may differ depending on what the comparative advantage of the ecosystem itself actually ends up being. And I think that this is also important to consider. With regards to the questions, we had one, there was the comment from Jim and then there was the question from Nick. Which one do you want us to address the most? We can just, yeah, whichever you can take the first. Well, I mean, you know, the comment there, so the most regulated systems will likely use permission consortia. Yes, or yes, it's not obviously relegated to financial services. You'll have consortia that could easily use, you know, creating data sharing agreements for supply chain traceability. For health, for health, for health. But health is also a little bit of a tricky one because then you really need the data minimization and selective disclosure because health data is one of the most sensitive. With the next question, are there any public blockchains out there where user enterprise can confidently delete non-transactional digital content without relying on the node operator to carry out their wishes? I would say public permission less, I would say no. Public permission, yes. And also I think, I mean, considering the overall blockchain and DLT environment, yes, I'm happy to be followed up on this after the event. Also, there are any chains out there capable of delivering original subnet which could comply with regulatory. Yes, and the answer is not only isolated for Europe, but let's say if you see like institutional projects which are popping up also in Asia, in America, let's say that the creation of DLT really empowers the creation of subnet that where let's say, enterprise or let's say, network administrator operated by regulators can then make sure that the different participants which host the nodes, they comply with specific certification and bonding compliance and the regulatory requirement into it. Yes, whether you can change data is a function of the full trust design in place, not just the base blockchain. Yes, yes, at 630, I'm sorry. There you go, G, thank you. All right, that's fantastic. Now we're just on time. Maybe if somebody else has a question, I guess we can take one more. Otherwise, I would like to express sincere thank you for all our panelists, Erwin, Noginio and Mate. It's been very informative, I learned a lot. And thank you everybody for joining us as well. So we will share the slides afterwards. I dropped the link to the blockchain manifesto in the chat, we'll send the link to that as well. So you're very invited to have a look at that. And this recording will also be available on YouTube. So you can go back and review if you missed a certain part of it, I know I will go back and listen to it again. So thank you very much for joining and thank you so much to our panelists again. Thank you, thank you for inviting us. Anyone wants to reach out to us, you can find us on LinkedIn, shoot us a message, happy to talk and to engage. And thanks very much Tomas and Hyperledger for having us. That was a pleasure and hope to be here again soon. Yeah, always. Thank you very much guys. Bye. Take care. Thank you. Bye. Thanks everyone.