 So Andreas Veronica Martin, thank you for joining us. I want us to start if each of you could spend two, three minutes just talking about kind of your background and the role that this technology has played in the work that you do. Why don't we start with Veronica? Yes, so thank you so much for having me, Ryan. I'm really honored to be here. So at Bitlumens, we are actually building a smart meter that is connected to hyperledger blockchain. And we are doing this for two different reasons. One of them is to provide carbon certificate. So we are running the calculation on the carbon mitigation piece on later on tokenized in it through a layer two Ethereum type of XDAI type of blockchain. And then later on, the idea would be to really enter into the marketplace simply because we believe that the carbon marketplace will grow over time. We just heard that NASDAQ, for instance, had purchased a very important entity from Finland to do carbon trading. And then we bring this type of smart meter into rural communities, mainly in communities that are connected to mini grids, micro grids, or renewable power plants. Okay. And the idea would also be to provide the end user, the person consuming electricity with a sort of credit score, a scoring system that it's also running on hyperledger blockchain. So we have been active since the past two years. The smart meter is right now ready. So we will be able to start piloting in India, Mexico, and Bolivia. So I will leave it there. Thank you. That's fantastic. That's really, that's really cool to hear about. Andrea, I said, how does this line up with your work at Siemens? I couldn't think of two more different companies at the ends of the commercial spectrum, perhaps. But I have a sense that you and Veronica probably share a lot of similar views on how much of this will roll out. But what are you doing at Siemens? That's right. So thanks, Brian, and hi to all of you. In Siemens, in charge of cybersecurity technology, it's a global team that covers cybersecurity technologies really across the spectrum of the enterprise of Siemens, the production part of Siemens, the factories, and the products and solutions that Siemens offers. Before joining Siemens, I was actually with IBM Research in Zurich for quite a long time, 19 years, very much involved in hyperledger fabric development. But what brings me here now to hyperledger global forum are actually very concrete industrial problems. And it's three areas. The first one is sort of around machine identities, where we see that the traditional, more centralized way of giving out identities to devices maybe needs to be rethought or extended with more decentralized forms. And the second one is that we feel the trust that we very often talk around ecosystems today we know business is more and more done in ecosystems. It has to reach into the physical world. And this touches already on the sustainability problem. When we talk about carbon footprints, for instance, it has to do with the physical production process in a factory, for instance, how do you really trust a transaction that eventually makes it into a little piece of the aggregated part of carbon footprint. And the third area is really the trustworthiness in sustainability, where we as Siemens, as a company feel, of course, much more responsibility coming, but also we see the carbon pricing coming. So that's an area where we have to be at the forefront to address these topics. And it should not be as a PR way to look environmentally friendly. But it has to be an approach that really is based on a foundation where trustworthiness means more than just a word on a web page or a word from some executives. It has to be based on technology. And that leads to blockchain, leads to maybe more the verifiable credential part of blockchain. I believe there is a lot of potential in order to trace sustainability, trace carbon footprints, trace also any kind of ESG values that are from the problem statement very similar to trace as carbon footprints. Yeah, that's my quick intro. That's great. No, it's a very complimentary angle to Veronica's. Martin, why don't you tell us about the work that you've done at Yale and that you are planning to do with the Open Earth Foundation. Great. First, a pleasure to join you all. And in many ways, as no-profits, both at Yale and at the Foundation, our role is also to help integrate all the different parts of the big companies, the small ones, the governments as well, and help bring in a lot of these multi-stake holders. But the heart of what I've been focusing on is leveraging systems thinking to tackle planetary scale solutions because the magnitude of the challenge requires that whatever system we design has to be also designed for exponential scale. So we lie at the intersection of emerging digital technology with blockchain and DLTs as one of our tools of choice, but also the power of open source in many ways, leveraging the hyper ledger tools and other type of tools of the sector, but to concrete applications in the climate space. So to give an example, two things that we're operating at the moment. On one side, in the area of climate action finance with interoperability of different platforms in the process of securitizing, let's say solar financing to be able to streamline that process. On the other side, open climate, which is probably our most ambitious project, which is to design and deploy an integrated climate accounting system for the Paris agreement. And that starts by having consensus in the state of a carbon budget, but also on how we create verifiable climate credentials for individuals, companies, sub-national governments and nations so that their carbon footprints and inventories can scale up to the international stage of the Paris agreement, much to be said there. But on my last comment in the intros, thankfully, I'm not the chair of the Hyperledger Climate Action SIG anymore. After finishing the first year, passed along to amazing new co-chairs. And I think that really shows when communities start taking off. Yeah, yeah, thanks Barton for that correction. Well, why don't we just dive into the heart of this for a lot of people who are kind of on the outside a bit of blockchain and climate, which is people hear a lot about kind of the negative environmental impact of the use of blockchain technology. And I know those of us on the inside know the distinction between the different technologies, consensus mechanisms, that kind of thing. But how important is it that we actually get a really clear sense of visibility into the ESG burdens that both are embedded inside the financial infrastructure that we're trying to build here and into the financial assets. And through that, I mean, how do we actually counter some of these concerns? We're building new financial infrastructure for energy, financing and accounting and that sort of thing. How do we respond to those concerns that not only the public has but regulators have as well? Who wants to take that first? I'm actually going to start if you don't mind just because you brought in the dialogue that's been very intense this year around the intensity of blockchains, which is obviously in some sense a misnomer. The heart of it is in the proof of work consensus protocol. And it's the first time I actually think about it. It's actually quite ironic that a technology around traceability and around accounting actually has a really hard time pinpointing exactly where its emissions are coming from to be able to proper sort of address that from Bitcoin standpoint. But if we take that as the whole, we have there a good example because miners are consuming electricity. We need to be able to have more visibility of where that's happening. What's the intensity of the grits that they have which is not as visible as what we'd like to do. Those are also companies that represents the footprint of that company. So if you're an investor on a let's say a proof of work mining company, you're probably going to want to know that. And if you would have more traceability on that process, that would trickle into data of the ESG. But then also if all of that's worked together properly, it would go all the way to the product level, which is the Bitcoin that a person would hold. So if we would actually use the technology for one of its great uses, we would be able to have a lot more clear transparency at the product than the company level. So taking that into the corporate world, you'd be able to easily translate into how relevant that is for ESG, but pass it along to someone else also to chime in. Yeah, I will also say something. I think it's important to understand that the new technologies that had emerged over the past years are enabling new type of use cases to tackle climate change and to provide climate disclosures. But these applications independently on where your data centers are and what type of protocols you are using are also, we need better also collaboration between public and private entities, in particular for three points that are very important for climate change. One of them are investment flows because we need trillions of dollars of investments to really be able to comply with the Paris Agreement. The second one is pricing risks. How can regulators price the risk surrounding climate change? And the third one is accessing data. And when I heard a lot of financial regulators talking on how can we access data, there is not enough data to be able to align their financial flows with the allocation to SDGs. It's really to me interesting because over the past year, we have seen an explosion of data, 5,000% growth, that it's coming mainly from satellite imagery and IoT. And if you combine IoT with things like blockchain mainly for climate disclosures and be able to access finance, right? Let's assume a lot of SMEs get together in a conglomerate and they are able to issue a bond on chain. You're reducing the cost of issuance and that has a huge impact on the community. It has a huge social impact as well if you work for instance in rural communities or in the areas that are needed most. And I think traceability of data, transparency and verification will be key to really be able to access the marketplace, in particular the carbon marketplace. Yeah, traceability of data sounds really important there, but I think also I want to key on that verification kind of phase. How do we trust this data? I was actually reading an article about deep fakes now emerging in satellite data. You can use AI to manufacture satellite data to look like however you'd want it to look like. So Andreas, how does the work that you're doing tie into this? Because I think that question of how do we trust the data that we're collecting and storing into the ledger? We know that it's not truthful just because it's written to a blockchain, right? How do we get a sense around trusting this data that is coming from all these different sources? Yeah, so in the domain that we operate, it's almost always a physical domain. It's a train system, it's an energy system, it's a factory, it's a city with the traffic lights. And I think in the past when you looked at supply chain use cases, it was thought that it would be enough to just connect the ERP systems of the different companies in the supply chain to a blockchain. And because they should reflect basically the truth within the company, and then everything would be fine. But it turned out that in many domains, this is surely not enough. You have to extend the trust into the physical domain to make this really sensible, usable, the data that is in the blockchain. You can have it perfectly hashed and chained up, but if the input is just an oracle that comes from an ERP system, it's not enough. So that's the reason why we quite early tried to port the sort of native client parts of the different stacks onto some things like the programmable logic devices. So in factories, when you look at machines that control things, you always have these gray boxes with the blinking LED lights. So they look very old-fashioned, but inside is actually pretty cool technology. It's a vertical business model, very similar to the iPhone, actually, where everything is very tightly integrated down to the silicon level. And here we attempt to bring in, or we managed to have some of the agents, so the client parts that you have in fabric, for instance, ported on. And with this, you know that if a wealth opens, the transactions actually signed at that point, and you can send it off, or the energy consumption. So if you talk about sustainability, CO2 emissions, we have this differentiation of the different scopes. So the direct emissions, scope one, the energy, scope two, and then the supply chain. That's another topic, of course, but if we look just scope one, scope two, within a factory context, one trust domain, you really have to track all these kind of events that are somehow triggered by these programmable logic controllers, and bring the trust into with the respective keys that make sense in the back end of the blockchain network. So it should not be two identity systems. It has to be the same kind of trust domain in order to make it sensible. So that's a big area for us to work on. Yeah. And I have a follow up question of that. But first, let me just mention to the audience, if any of you have questions you'd like me to ask, feel free to ask them inside Hoppin. And we'll pull them over. I'll try to pick one. Apologies if I don't get to your question, but feel free to ask and I'll try to bring it in. Following up on that, and that's really to anybody here. It feels like part of the getting to the question of what is truth, what is what is trustworthy, what's verifiable is also partly a question of which data do we decide to put on ledger and which data kind of sits off ledger, right? And which is somewhat related to this question of when do we consider using private ledgers and public ledgers too? Does anyone want to kind of touch on kind of the architecture of, you know, at one extreme, things are very public. And that means data is automatically shared, but that's hard to convince companies to completely be public with all their data versus, but that way you can be transactional about it too, versus how do you just, you know, have a system for verifying time stamps of claims being made and that sort of thing, right? Like, anyone want to talk about that or how they've approached that on the work that they've done? I could give it a first shot maybe. So I think the general rule for us is to store as little as possible onto a public blockchain. Even in a permission context, we would try to avoid to put any kind of real data onto the chain. Very often, you don't need to. And even if it's encrypted, there's risk that eventually it can be, you know, thinking about post quantum crypto and so on. It's not completely secure in a couple of years. So we try to avoid but rather have like a reference that points to something that sits off chain or have some form of hashing, also for reasons that in some cases you want to actually delete a value that has to do with privacy confidentiality where things have to eventually, you know, move out of your system. If it's there forever chain, you cannot. In the other case, you can. So that's our general rule. Sometimes you cannot avoid it, but I think we try to avoid. And then also going verifiable credentials. Sometimes you want to have a peer to peer exchange. You don't need this central, well, central, it's of course not central, but it's the ledger that is the truth for everybody. So it's okay to use verifiable credentials have underlying the decentralized infrastructure for sharing the the schema, the revocation list and basically the in the in the kind of approach. I want to continue a little bit on what we have done in that particular respect. We have also chosen a private type of ledger simply because we also have a type of software as a service where we have different permissions in the system, right? And so if we have data coming every five minutes from thousands of devices, let's call them the smart meters, each of them has a particular ID that we are putting on on the chain, right? So it's the UD ID. We also identify the houses where we are currently working on chain. But again, we only use two different APIs to put that on chain. One is for the carbon mitigation piece and the other one is for the credit scoring part. So then later on we can share the scores or the result, the outcome with whoever needs it. But it's I think it's a pretty flexible way of working around privacy issues and also verification issues depending on the commands you give to the to the smart meter, right? So I understand coming to your later question, I understand what has been tampered in the system and how we can actually verify data because of the commands we have given previously. Right, right. I can chime in, you know, a couple of things also there. Andreas was talking about sort of sources of truth, focusing a lot on like physical agents, but a big part of the killer application of DIDs and verifiable credentials is also seen in the interface between government and companies. So for example, British Columbia has done a great job at practicing a lot of the stuff. And in the process of establishing these trust networks, a verifier for data that's has a level of privacy and can access data derivatives. So not the raw data, but trust the how the data has been calculated. That also can lead to publishing certain information about that that data that needs to be public into, for example, more public ledger. But it's a lot of that that trust and chain of information that becomes very important and available with some of these tools. But it almost sounds like if I'm hearing folks, if you were to roughly split the use cases between digital identity, and I mean not just companies and individuals, but also the identity of the sensors and that kind of thing. And transactions in terms of trading of carbon credits and other types of almost like tokenization kinds of use cases, but things that are kind of mechanically about traceability. If I were to split these two, it almost sounds like the first one is going to be more important in the fight against climate change for a while at least in the in the work that everyone's doing here, then the latter is that is that a fair observation or do you think it'll be more even handed? I think it's important to be able to have a balanced architecture for both. And this is kind of the hard thing about how to design a properly trusted integrated accounting system. Let's do how do we determine how we all speak about climate in the same way? How do we trust a lot of that data? Because at the end of the day, we're going to have a pressure crunch between the information that's in the atmosphere that's derived from our sensors and our integrative assessment models, but also with the world's reporting so that we constantly know how much of a laggard we are as individuals, companies, subnational governments and national governments and what are the changes that we need to do? And what we said we were going to do, which is also very important to have a level of immutability because we can go back and say that's what you said back then. So this is where you're at now. That also allows levels of automation. So I think it's the integrated sort of design that becomes very important, particularly on climate. Okay. I want to say something really quickly about that. I think Martin just touched on a very, very important topic, at least for me personally, because when I hear regulators, you know, talk about all the goals and at least in Europe, the taxonomy and the reporting that companies would have to do to comply with the Paris Agreement goals of the net zero in 2050, it's insane. And then if you can simply take the information coming from satellite imagery and you know, what is the carbon, the CO2 that it's been released and the carbon footprints, you know, it's actually very, very simple. So how we can provide this data investor ready. And I think that would be a really interesting use case and I hope to see more of those use cases in the future. Okay. Andreas, any closing thoughts? Yeah, I think it's a bit around speed as well that we sort of in our context, it's we want to move very fast because we feel carbon pricing is coming, we have to be prepared. And if we move into a system that is in a regulatory gray area, or let's say in a difficult area, as just very, Veronica just mentioned, we kind of move as fast. So this is why we focus on what we can actually do with respect to producing a sneaker, a mobile phone, a car and how to correctly measure it and also give possibilities to do different sourcing, that you do simulations and you change the design of your product or you're purchasing decisions based on this kind of data at hand. So that's our angle. But I understand there's another part, if both comes together, there's even more booster. Well, there's lots of important work to do. We actually have a hyperledger lab, thanks to the Climate Action Accounting SIG, focused on bits and pieces of this, lots more that we could do here. Martin, Veronica, Andreas, thank you for helping give the audience a taste of this. All three of them are doing talks and panels throughout the rest of the event. So please come and dive into that if you are interested in this topic. And with that I'll close the panel. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks.