 away before I read the policy as usual. Hi, Witt. Hi, Menend. Hi, Frank. OK, the live stream is now up. You are ready to go whenever you like. Perfect. Welcome, everybody. As usual, I'll go through the policy, I mean the Linux Foundation Antitrust Policy reading. Linux Foundation meetings involve participation by industry competitors and is the intention of the Linux Foundation to conduct all of its activities in accordance with applicable antitrust and competition laws. It is therefore extremely important that attendees deal to missing agendas and be aware of and not participate in any activities that are prohibited under applicable US state, federal or foreign antitrust and competition laws. Examples of types of actions that are prohibited are Linux Foundation meetings and in connection with Linux Foundation activities are described in Linux Foundation Antitrust Policy. If you have questions about these matters, please contact your company council. Or if you are a member of the Linux Foundation, feel free to contact Andrew of the Grove of the firm, Gassner of the Grove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the Linux Foundation. Hyperledger is committed to creating safe and welcoming community for more information. Please visit the Hyperledger code of conduct. So here we are at last after a few days of wasting. We now back to another special meeting. This time we're going to host a few important people in the industry. And we're going to talk about the DNI initiative, the Digital Negotiable Instruments. For me, it's like a completion of one more actual break and see that we are about to build this month of March in particular. We have already had one important missing on the second of March with Gunnar, which gave us very good feedbacks. Now we're back with the whole community of the ITFA and detailing what's going on in the industry nowadays to make a point. And to hear from them, just a few words on what we are doing. I am the chair of the Trade Finance Special Interest Group at Hyperledger. We've gone massively into these arguments in the past year. And during this one, we're going to go deeper into this. We're going to host people dealing with the modernization of trade finance on the legal and on the technical side. We have two sides, actually, the Wikipedia side, which I invite you to have a look at. And also the site on the LinkedIn where we store all the recordings of our meetings and all the material related to this. We have been nurturing several projects within the Special Interest Group. And one is one connected to the governance and to the creation of this type of consortia. I would leave it on to Eugenio, which is one of my partners in the CIC to have a few words about what we are doing within the CIC nowadays to give you a few hints about this. So Eugenio, would you like to give a few words about this? Thank you. Thank you, Andrea. This is Eugenio Eugenini. I am a project lead at the Hyperledger Trade Finance. And we are actually developing this consortium and governance project that essentially see global standardization as a way to bring more sustainable corporate governance into the DUT Trade Finance Initiative. The project started a couple of months ago. Essentially, it was the second half of 2020. And I remember I would like to give this sort of a reminder from the history. I remember we met me, Andrea, and all the other people around CIC in order to understand how to approach this problem in a very practical way. And so we started thinking about, OK, there is this digital silos problem all around the world. And the different side of the world are trying to provide some sort of solution. So really, from a practical point of view, we decided to look into different specific applications that were provided by different regional initiatives, especially in Asia Pacific in the US and in Europe, which for different reasons are the most mature and proactive market for trade finance. So we already had two meetings, two special meetings. The first of all focused on the Singapore as a hub for Asia Pacific market. And we have ICC DSI initiative with Mr. Keiler introducing us the project and to understand how Singapore is trying to lead the Asia Pacific region in terms of standardization of digital trade finance initiative. And then recently, we have a US perspective with a tokenized solution approach provided by BAFD through the DLPC as a tokenized solution to provide digital bank payment obligation to the anti-system. And today, I'm very glad we have Andreas Daman introducing the ETFA approach with the digital negotiable instrument that seems to be a very flexible solution in order to provide digitalization and digital transformation to the trade finance industry. So I would like to leave the word to Andreas and thank you for your time. Yes, Andreas will start amazing. Then we go on to make also space, as I said, for Yakuza world, detailing also the value of gassing into the picture also the electronic bill of relating. André, my pleasure, first of all, to have you here today. It's an honor for us to hear from you and from Guna. It's going to be a sort of continuation of our chatting on the second of March. So I will leave it on to you to kick off officially the smithing. Thank you, Andrea. It's a pleasure to be here. Indeed, I'm active within it as well as within ICC, UK, and the world of open account on the topic of digitizing negotiable instruments. So on my background, I've been in the financial services industry for the last 30 years. I first spent 24 years at Swift, first in IT, and then in new product development. So working with banks is what I like, believe me or not. But it is fascinating because it's not easy. And bringing advanced innovations in payments and trade finance and also in capital markets and tokenization is what I am focusing on. So working with incumbent banks is very important because they will not go away whether you like it or not. Some banks or some people believe that banks will go away, will be disrupted. That will not happen in my view. New entrants are definitely making inroads and pushing the market. But working with existing banks is a priority, at least for me. So I'm working with a number of fintechs that are helping banks on various topics. You can find them on my LinkedIn profile. This topic is around technology, but it is also around regulatory requirements. So indeed, with some of those associations like ITFA or ICC UK, we are also talking to regulators. Very important to talk to regulators and make sure the laws are evolving to align with the technology. Maybe those of you making noise in the background can mute themselves. That will be good for everyone. Yeah, please everybody mute because it's a little noisier in the background. So we can all hear Mr. Kasteman well. Thank you. What are we trying to do? Thank you, Andrea. What are we trying to do with the D&I initiative is basically to increase digitization of those instruments that because of regulatory requirements still require the use of paper. And we're really talking about bills of exchange and promissory notes. So we are trying to bring enhanced technology to banks in order to indeed provide a superior user experience to their clients, but also to their operations teams. And as you know, if clients have a better user experience, there is more business to make. So increased origination is definitely the purpose of that initiative. I think over the last 20 years or even 30 years in Treasury, we have seen the platformization of various processes. I worked a lot with Treasury management systems 20 years ago. I worked with trade finance platforms, and I still do. And platforms are critical. But for some processes, we see now new ways to integrate technologies. And this is based on the DLT technology. So we're going to talk about the DLT technology. But again, I don't want to be saying that platforms are not good and DLT is the only thing that matters in the future. I think it's an evolution of how the very initial step that the industry has made to use platforms for specific processes. SWIFT is a platform at messaging level. YACO is representing a platform for trade finance as well. We'll know more from YACO. And there are many platforms for different processes. So this is all valid. However, there are ways also to help financial institutions interoperate and also potentially platforms to interoperate thanks to DLT. So from a technology point of view, there is an evolution, no revolution for sure. What we're trying to achieve on the technology side, and we have identified an ECO as a technology provider as part of the GNI initiative for this purpose, is to provide a very interoperable solution. So the goal is to digitize those instruments, bills of exchange, promissory notes, by having a file that is a digital container of the information. So whichever text the document needs to contain, that is stored in a file that is highly secured with electronic signatures and seals and timestamps and so on. And the lifecycle of the document in terms of the creation of the document, the amendments, the transfer of ownership, and so on are all tracked with a digital notary. And this is where the DLT makes sense. So I want to highlight here that DLT has a specific function to track the lifecycle of the document. The DLT is not used here to fulfill all the functions. You see as part of the solution to digitize the document, the DLT is used as a notary and tracking the lifecycle, but not storing any business information on the DLT. The business information is stored in the digital container in the file. That type of technology is compatible with existing infrastructures and banks use a lot of different systems. And also new entrants would use different systems in order to indeed exchange the information. We can call that a digital courier, a transport layer. It could be the internet ebics in Europe in the corporate to bank space or in the bank space. It could be switched at global level. And exchanging a file is something that any network can do. Usually it's a basic use case to exchange a file. So such a file representing the negotiable instrument is compatible with all of those channels. It has also to be interoperable with existing systems. Banks use front-to-back office applications that they have built in-house or they bought from major vendors. We know the big names, the Finastra, the China system, the Shokumb and many more. And those systems also have to be able to process such a digital file representing the bill of exchange or the promissory note. So compatibility with the existing infrastructure is a paramount importance. And this is what such technology allows to do. Now, how can we compare a digital original to something we know and use quite frequently? So as I've worked on this initiative and set it up about 18 months ago, late 2019, as we progressed and positioned this from a technology point of view, I started to compare the effort required for banks to what the banks have done on the electronic signature site. We know that electronic signatures are enabling to sign any content. It could be a paper document that is scanned and then signed electronically. It could be structured text. So whichever content the electronic signature is highlighting who signed the document and what it contains. And that is basically a use case that most of the banks have integrated on payments, on contract management and via their existing website. And that is indeed a use case that everyone can relate to. However, once we talk about negotiable instruments, we need to identify who owns the instruments or the document and whether the document is an original. And this is where the use of a paper is required to identify the medium as the only original. And of course, you can identify an original via a platform. However, if you're in a non-platform environment, how can institutions transfer an original and control the ownership? So far, the only way is to use a paper. And that is why a lot of paper is still used for those negotiable instruments. And of course, with technology and if we add a DLT capabilities with hash stored in a public DLT, we can get the technology to embed the control of ownership that paper offers, as well as the support for traceability of the life cycle, which paper doesn't offer today. And this is the goal of a digital original is to get to that third stage on the right-hand side to identify electronically who owns the original and who it is transferred to and making sure the transfer can be done electronically as well. So control of signature, control of ownership and life cycle traceability. These are the three key characteristics that we want to achieve in a fully electronic way. And of course, this is only the technology story. Still the law needs to enable this. And so far, I think that the industry has enabled platforms to create their proprietary ecosystems to make this happen. However, the platforms will never connect all the SMEs, all the corporates, all the freight forwarders potentially, but certainly not on the SME side. You cannot imagine a bank asking all of its SME clients to join a specific platform just to benefit from electronic originals. And this is where DLT makes sense to get to that third stage. So from an IT implementation point of view, I also compare the integration of an electronic original technology like Enigio to the electronic signature technology that banks have integrated already since years like a DocuSign or Signicat or others. There are many and there will be many providers in the future around electronic originals as well and DLT. So it's all about integrating that technology within their front-to-back office systems. It's not about joining a platform and storing all the data on the platform. So as you have understood, DLT is only there to act as a notary service and to offer transparency because it's a public DLT but not to reveal any business data. All of the business data is stored in a file that here, as I said, we have spotted within the ITFA membership Enigio as a vendor, but again, the same concept, I'm sure will be replicated sooner or later by other providers in the same way as electronic signatures are supported by various providers. Now on the legal side, we also have identified a gradual faced approach and of course we want to focus on providing a legal framework based on common law. So what we're aiming to achieve is the upright box here, the full recognition of electronic negotiable instrument into law and that is being done by some countries. Recently Abu Dhabi global markets as a jurisdiction has made this happen, but this will take time. Of course, before most countries are changing the law to fulfill, to fully recognize negotiable instruments in electronic form. So before we get to the destination within ITFA, we have developed a contract law based solution. So that was developed by Sullivan, a law firm for the community. So this is available to you and the electronic payment undertaking is the legal framework developed by Sullivan for the community to provide a functionally equivalent bill of exchange and promissory note, but within contract law. So it is not as negotiable as one under common law, but still I'm sure it can fulfill multiple use cases where you don't need this full negotiability under common law. Now, if you go back to the bottom left box, the day you see also that the same technology can address non-negotiable instruments. So the same technology that requires original documents to be produced and to be delivered, such as for instance, guarantees or other types of documents can be supported by the technology and some banks are going this way. In that case, of course, the use case is less complex from a legal point of view because you don't need to adopt a new legal framework or to wait for the country to change the law. And this is where any type of trade document actually can be digitized using the same technology. So these are the three use cases from a legal point of view. So as I said, we have created a working group about a year ago, a bit more than a year ago, and that includes different providers working together because it is important indeed to combine the document technology of an IQ with electronic signatures of Cignicat or DocuSign or others to make sure this whole technology can be embedded within major vendors like China Systems and Finastra, but also within new entrants, document processing solutions like a Tradstream or NABU, which are providing document checking capabilities and checking documents against the ICC rules. Also that can be tokenized. I guess that's a topic we can talk about later. And as I said, we have worked with a number of advisors, including Sullivan, for the definition of the electronic payment undertaking. This is an integration view. As you see here, different providers working together, you see the trace original logo on the e-banking where the document is created in the trace original logo. So that is the technology of an ego. We'll cover that a bit in a few minutes with Gona. It can be integrated within a system like China Systems. I can put Finastra there, it doesn't matter, or Shokom. And it can also be integrated within Tradstream, which would OCR paper, but if paper is replaced by a structured document, of course the document checking function remains as valid and takes an electronic file as input to avoid to skip the OCR function. Externally, the banks then rely on the public DLT to provide the life cycle tracking of the document. Integration outside of the back office within Swift is as critical indeed, because Swift covers the full banking community and File Act is a service which I happen to have launched in 2001 in the payments world, and which connects now almost all the Swift banks around the world, and also major corporates. We connected when I left Swift in late 2015, we had close to 2000 corporate groups on Swift, the multi-bank corporates, and also using File Act on the payment side. So the same File Act, File Transfer Service can be used to exchange those documents. There is no need for all corporates and all banks to be connected to a common platform, the exchange of a file, and the reference to the DLT managed by Negio is sufficient. There is no need to sign up and to pay a third-party platform. Again, nothing against the platforms because they can take advantage of the same technology, but just showing the approach we have favored in this case. There is more information, certainly on the legal side, we have a full document we released in April 2020 that outlines the legal challenges around negotiable instruments and why it is not possible today under UK law to refer to the Bill of Exchange Act with an electronic negotiable instrument. And we are working through ICC UK and the UK Law Commission to change the law. Hopefully that will be done next year so that the UK Bill of Exchange Act can also accept electronic originals instead of on the paper originals. Again, ABU Dabbi Global Markets has done that already as well as a third country. And we see more and more interest also on the EC side to make sure that the EIDAS Regulation for Electronic Signatures is evolving in order to support electronic originals. So change is happening on the legal and regulatory side. I have no doubt. And there are other reasons I can provide later why change is happening. And I'm confident we will get there in the short term. And with this, Andrea, I'm accelerating a bit the rhythm to make sure Yakko and Goner can share their own slides and we can have a fruitful discussion afterwards. Thank you. Thank you so much, Andrei. Thanks for the insight. So I would leave it on to Goner. I managed to unmute. I'm happy. So hi, everyone. It happens, Goner. Yes, I know. So really happy to be here. Thank you, Andrea, for inviting me. I think, no, to start, my background is I've been working in banks for too many years, many, many years, and especially in operations and more specifically in trade finance operations so I really know what it looks like on the inside of the bank on how to deal with massive amounts of paper documents. A couple of years back, I came across Enigio and I'm really happy to have sort of made a career change and now working with the small tech company. And really the interesting thing with Enigio is that we are sort of the legacy and the background is really around archiving and digital archiving. So my colleagues, they're really good at everything around digital archiving. And if you're in that space, you need to be really, really good at what you're doing because otherwise it won't work and you need to be precise in everything you do. So this is really good. And in order to sort of demystify everything, the only thing basically that we are focusing on is documents. And when I say documents, I'm not particularly interested in what's written on a document. I'm more interested in on how to digitize the sheet of paper. Because if you think about it, a sheet of paper is actually a really, really good standard. It's a very basic standard. And it's a standard that works for everyone everywhere because everyone knows what the piece of paper is. And it's a really, really good standard for exchanging information. And also the good news with the document is you can write anything you want on it. So this is really where our focus is, how to digitize a sheet of paper. And in order to do that, you need to be careful. So if we jump to the next slide. So Andre talked a lot about sort of our trace original solution and our digital documents and really to emphasize what our documents can do or how they are sort of different from other solutions. So the first thing we can do, we can actually distinguish the original from a copy. And in the digital space, that is really, really key because as it is today with most solutions, I mean, you can make a silly and copies and they will look exactly the same. So really key, especially when you look at negotiable instruments or documents of title and any type of document where you need to be in control of the original, you really need to be able to have an original. So that's the first thing. The second thing is that you need to be able to process this particular document, sort of an entity or a person needs to be able to be in possession of this one original. This person or entity also needs to be able to continue writing on the document because that is actually the way sort of the paper document works, that the one who is having the original can also write on it, continue writing on it. It doesn't stop there. You also need a way of being able to transfer the possession from one person or entity to another one and you need to be able to do that safely and securely. And in addition, if we talk about sort of the legal space and this is also one of the things with our solution, it was actually constructed and developed in order to comply with the Swedish debt law from 1936 on negotiable, in the transferable negotiable instruments. So you need to be able to stand in front of a court of law and you need to be able to prove that you are in possession of the one and only original and that you are entitled to whatever promise is written on that piece of paper. So this is also what our solution can do. With this, we get a lot of other good features. First of all, our documents are completely mutable. So if someone tries to forge them or do something to it, it will be detected immediately. So they are immutable and they're fraud safe. Also, the documents themselves contain everything that has happened to them. So if you do anything to the document or you add anything or you write on it or you add a signature, it will all be in the document. So the document will contain its own audit trail. And also the last key point here, and I think this is really what you touched upon, Andrea. Today, I think banks are really in a challenge because on the one hand, you really need to digitize. You need to make things better and more efficient and more secure. You need to do that, but you also need to make sure that you have your data under control. You need to make sure that you don't sort of share or get sort of loose business or even worse private data. And this is where I think our solution is really, really good because as I mentioned, all the data sits in the document. It doesn't sit anywhere else. So you can only share the data the same way as you today share data through paper documents. It's the same thing with our solution. So all the business data, all the private data, all sits sit in the document. So if we jump to the next one. So you show this as well, Andrea. In order to make this work, we, or the guys I should say, they constructed their own blockchain. So this blockchain only has the function of being a notary service. So anyone can go to our blockchain and they can have a look and the only thing they will see is this a lot of hashes. So the way the notary service works is that if you're in possession of a document, you can go to the notary service and you can ask the notary service, is this a valid original? And the notary service will tell you yes or no. It won't know anything about what's written in your document, but it can tell you whether you have an original and whether you are sort of the one in possession of the one original. So that's the only thing that our blockchain is doing, nothing else. So how does this actually work? How does it come together? So as I mentioned, we are only interested in sort of creating digital documents that sort of performs and behaves the same way as their paper equivalence. And the way we do that is that on the upper hand here, you see sort of the paper process and below we explain how we actually use all the different components to make this come alive. So in the physical world, you have a piece of paper, we just have a data file. That's nothing complicated with that. In the physical world, you write something or you print something on your piece of paper, we just add content to the file. In the physical world, you know where the paper starts and where it ends and you know what sort of is written in the document and what's not written in it. We use the secure hash algorithms just to hash the document and thereby recreating sort of what the sheet, the borders of the sheet of paper represent in the physical world. So that's not very complicated. In the physical world, in order for something to have a value, someone has to promise something and then you add a wet signature to a paper document. We just add, as Andrea said, we just add any type of electronic signature to the document. It could be a simple one. It could be an advanced one. It could be any type. We just add it to the document and then we hash it again. So the signature becomes an integrated part of the document. As I mentioned, we have a blockchain. So we publish the hashes on the blockchain just to store the evidence of the existence and what the document sort of looked like. We also have yet another component and we work with cryptographic key pairs. So when the document is created, a public key is issued and the public key is published in the document and on the blockchain, you also have a private key and you keep the private key to yourself because this is the key you need to use when you're going to write on the original. So you will be the only one that is in possession of this particular document. And also, as Andrea explained, this means that we have actually created a safe and secure data container. You can put any content into it and you can actually exchange it and distribute it and copy it and do whatever you want with it and you can do that digitally. A few other words. If we look at sort of the paper process and you know this really well, if you work with papers, you have one process that you have to babysit and that's costly and cumbersome and risky and what most sort of companies and banks are doing these days is that they scan these paper documents and thereby created two processes and you created two problems for yourselves. So we think this is really not the way to go. So it's better to collapse that and only work with digital originals from start to end. Two other things. Our documents are machine readable and they're also readable by man. So you can pull up a document and you can read it from start to end if you want to. We can also, if someone wishes to, we can also create trace original documents as PDFs. So this is a new feature that we have just launched. Yes, next one. So as I said, we are a tech company and we're only focusing on digitizing paper and making these digital paper behave the same way as the paper equivalent so that anyone at any time can go digital. Thank you. I'm done, I think. Thank you, Gurnade. Thanks to you, my friend. It was very interesting to hear from you as well. Time is running and we've had so far very interesting insights and I would like to let the third speaker step in the picture and give some insights. We'll have to think for last, but definitely it's gone to detail. One, something about what I consider as one of the core documents in the trade finance picture, which is the bill of lading. So, Jako, welcome again to the group. Nice to have you here. I'll leave it unto you to have your insights, make it interactive and interesting. I'll leave it unto you to give a few words. My pleasure. Thank you, Andrea, for allowing me to speak. I'm going to skip slides and I'm also going to try and keep it a bit interactive because I guess you have a lot of questions, hopefully for me, but also for Gunnar and also for Andre. So, on Bolero, my role is indeed the global head of sales there. I also have a 30-plus year experience in trade finance, commodity finance, factoring, forfeiting, anything under the sun there. And I would say my personal ambition is to change global trade and move away from paper and enable digital trade. So, I'm a big fan of any initiative that we can support whether it's blockchain related, whether it is any form of digitization. And personally, I'm also part of the International Chamber of Commerce of the Steering Committee for Digital Trade, where we also try and help and promote as much as we can, whether it is on the E-Rules, the URDTT, or whether it is about making suggestions for legislations or model laws to be amended or inserted. So, from that perspective, all for it and really welcoming any initiative there. From a Bolero perspective, a few weeks ago, I gave a one-hour overview of what we do. So, if you want to see that, I'm sure Andrea can share the link. But in relation to the topic of the call today or the Webex today, we have been operating in digital trade for 22 years now. And one of the items relevant for today is in the electronic bill of lading, which again, we have been using and promoting and rolling out globally for 22 years. And I can tell you, it is a challenge. It is still a challenge today out there. Trade finance and the world of trade has still not gone fully digital. There's still many things that hamper it, whether it is regulators, port authorities, customs, even within the banks, product approvals and compliance and audit and risk. It is still a challenge, but it works today. And how we have overcome the issues so far to enable the use of an electronic bill of lading globally, for instance, was instead of trying to change the law, we have our own rulebook. And you can see it like sort of a club structure. So everybody handling electronic documents and especially handling the electronic bill of lading over Bolero, agree to the same rulebook, which is governed by English law. And that is the way how it can work today. And of course, also we hope that the UK law will also be extended to cover the bills of exchange in the promissory notes because from a, let's say from an EURC, so the collections, you would love to be able to include electronic bills of exchanges as well, which currently are not available globally. So we see that there is a future, there is a demand. And honestly, I think all of us today agree that something needs to happen in this dinosaur trade paper based environment. So from that perspective, I welcome it. I think also, I think Gunnar also mentioned it, it's a transition, it is a process. When we work with our customers globally, we never ever say that from today, compared to tomorrow, you can totally move away from paper for all your trade transactions. Definitely not. It is a process, but it is a process that I think nobody doubts that will happen. Even the trade world will move away from paper eventually. It is just that you need to get there. So I'm happy that there are now all these projects on the blockchain. For instance, we support quite a few as well. So we work with DLT ledgers, we work with Comchain, we work with Contour, Marco Polo. There we provide, for instance, our EBLs as a surface. So if those smart contracts need either proof of shipment or they need the underlying bill of lading in our case, or we even have to act as an escrow environment for that document to be transferred once a certain trigger has happened, we are more than fine with that as well. And I think as also a conclusion of what Andre has been telling, what Gunnar has been telling, right now what you see in global trade is that finally things are changing. A big accelerator, which is a very unfortunate accelerator is the COVID-19 crisis. We have seen an uptake because people realize documents got stuck. People suddenly had to work from home. How do you access paper documents that are lying in the bank or at the office? We have seen that there were delays in documents reaching the applicant in case of an LC. And then the clients would be confronted with demerit or cost-fertility release or for bank guarantees. So we see that the world is changing. I can only comment to that some local laws are being changed like in the Emirates for instance and in Bahrain. And that's all signs of that things are moving. How quickly the move will continue? Will it increase? Will it accelerate? I can only hope. But as we all know in trade, there are so many players. If only it was just a buyer and a seller and maybe a few banks involved, but we have all these adjacent parties and entities and regulators and lawmakers. So it is quite a challenge, but things are happening. So having said that, I would love, Andrea, if you would allow me to open the floor and ask questions. Because I think it's one thing that you hear these presentations, but I'm sure they trigger questions with you. And so let's try and use these last 15 minutes to address any questions you might have or if you agree or disagree, please speak up. It's a good time now, you know. This is Mr. Praful Chandra who would like to make a question. Praful, it's up to you, please. Hello, Mr. Chandra, can you hear me? Maybe I'm mute. No, it's not music, actually. No. I don't know what's going on. You know, he raised his hands. Oh. You cannot speak, maybe. Maybe someone else? Someone else, yeah. Yeah, there was a question here that I can read, I mean, by Mr. Brett. Brett, how the timestamp provides the solution, it was asking. Maybe it's up to you to give an answer to this one. I was just addressing the fact that the timestamp also. No, this is Praful. Yeah. Oh, Praful. Yes, we can hear you. Sorry, Brett. I'm sorry. Not a problem. Yeah, hey, sorry about that. Yeah, guys, so my name is Praful and I enjoyed the presentation about the digital originals. It's something that we have worked on and we actually worked on a solution which connected a private blockchain in Hyperledger Fabric to Tezos for exactly this purpose. And one of the questions I had for the team was, do you see standards emerging here? Because if one solution creates a digital original and another solution creates another digital original, then again, would we be stuck with a problem where you have two networks or two blockchains and then we are not able to transfer digital originals among them? Can I make a first generic remark about standards in trade finance? Please. Yeah. Is that okay? Yeah, so you have a very valid point, of course. Standards are important, but if you have a lot of standards next to each other, then it doesn't really help. And next to that, a standard is only good if it's actually used because you can create a standard, but if nobody uses it, what's the point? Yeah, maybe I can... A global standard on any item, I would say, if I may call it an item, that will be hard to enforce and hard to create. So a standard, I think, will evolve over time and one will become the prevailing standard. Until then, also we support that, but also together with the ICC, I think it is around interoperability. Because that's probably the only way to go initially and hopefully over time there will be standards that can be fully applicable to all. Sorry, Kunha. No, it's fine. Maybe I'm making this a bit too easy or too... Because our solution is based on the fact that once a digital original document is created with our technologies freely transferable and it can go to anyone. So there are no strings attached. You don't have to... You only need to have a computer and access to the internet. So in my world, there are many paper providers out there and they all provide the paper, right? And I think we are maybe looking at the same thing here that there will be many providers of digital original documents and they will work the same way as paper is working today. Thanks, Kunha. Andrea, could I jump in here? Because I think this is really one of the key things that BAFTA has been working on. Hello, Wade, first of all. Nice to see you here. Well, nice to be here. Of course, hello, John as well. Thank you for an excellent program. Those were terrific presentations by Andre, by Gunnar and by Jaco. And it just shows how quickly this world is moving and developing. It's terrific. But as we move inextricably to a digital world, we need to have a legal framework for digital payments because at the end of whatever pieces of paper are moving, whatever the transaction is, at the end of a transaction, there is always going to be a payment. Otherwise, you wouldn't have a transaction. And that's one of the things that we have been working on so that it will be able to transcend rule books, platforms, whatever. Because the key is that the payment is negotiable, the payment is interoperable, and that there's a strong legal framework around it. And I'm going to ask my colleague, John Taylor, who has been the person who has led the BAFTA legal work on this, just to give a little more background on this, because I think it's worth taking the time to share this with the rest of the audience. Andre, if you're amenable to that. Yeah. Well, thank you very much, Andrea. And also, good to see you, John. Oh, thank you. It's very nice to be invited and to be part of this discussion. And I'm most grateful for the presentations that have been made, because they were all extremely clear and show the huge effort that's being made as we try and move into the digital space. We kindly mentioned the legal, the need for legal certainty in this space. And Andre and Kastaman and others mentioned, of course, the difficulties that the law is just behind the technology at the moment. It needs to catch up with the technology in almost all jurisdictions. There is one jurisdiction, in addition to those that Andre had mentioned, that, however, has caught up in a limited way, that is to say, with promissory notes. Only promissory notes, not bills of exchange. So they're nowhere covering the waterfront. But within bills, within a promissory note, you can have a digital promissory note in digital form that is fully binding, transferable, more than transferable, negotiable. If it is structured within and governed by the law of Delaware, because the statutes in the law of Delaware have been changed to enable a promissory note in digital form to be fully binding, enforceable, and transferable, and more particularly negotiable. And therefore, is going to be, hopefully, an instrument that would be, since it's negotiable, it would be very attractive to many, many parties, including institutional investors. If one wanted to tap institutional investors as financing sources for trade finance. And so this, and I speak, please, I speak in my own personal capacity. I don't speak on behalf of BAFTA, but I was privileged to be part of a committee of bankers, lawyers, trade finance experts, which BAFTA put together. And we worked on this for over three years to come up with this so-called distributed ledger payment commitment. And if any of you need information on what is this, it's a simple instrument, merely a payment instrument, as Witt emphasized, it's just a payment instrument. And it can be used, therefore, in any form of trade finance transactions. And I do urge you to at least give consideration to this if you're trying to structure. It can be structured in connection with all of the instruments that have been so ably presented to us this afternoon in Europe anyway. Thank you very much. And please, Witt, if there's anything else that you want to mention. But I'm most grateful for the opportunity to be here. Thank you, John. Thank you. That's excellent. And please turn to John or myself if we can provide any information. Absolutely. May I ask a question? Because indeed, I've heard about it and the trick with bills of exchange and promissory notes as well is indeed that they should be negotiable and tradable, of course. On the promissory note on the loss of Delaware, would you happen to know if it can also be endorsed so that the bank can basically guarantee the promissory note? Is that also covered by the same law? I don't know. Frankly, Yaku, if I may answer very candidly, I don't know whether it can be endorsed. But what can be done is, as it were, a new promissory note, a new DLPC can be created. By the bank, then. By the bank. And if you look at the few documents that were the very small, the very short documents that we've prepared on this that are on the BATH website, you'll see that in certain types of transactions, there's not just one, there's not just one DLPC, one payment commitment. Because if the bank then takes the obligation, it takes, it effectively creates a new obligation sitting there. So you use it twice, basically. First as the corporate to the corporate, and then the bank can take it over to the corporate to the bank, right? That's what you're saying. Absolutely. Absolutely. And it's a good alternative as long as I heard from you in February. It's a good alternative to the traditional instruments of trade finance, namely, you know, cities which are in place for a few centuries now. And there are consulate in one, although they do require a lot of human interaction and exposed to some risks. I mean, lean to the documents, it's a good one, and you know, which in my opinion could be, could enhance strict funds massively if adopted at a widespread scale. Yeah, and I think that this is so trade finance, we always find ways to make it work. And that's what I love. I feel like ebills of lading, like e-promissory notes in your scenario under the law of Delaware. And you know, I think those initiatives and some of those will, as I said before, you know, will hopefully then get to a level that they become a standard or the preferred way to use it. That's the real standard, you know, to be developed. Let me tell a widespread one acknowledged on a global scale, I call it to give, you know, to gain use. And Andrea, could I also mention, please, very briefly, I was most grateful to hear Andre mention about the efforts that are being undertaken in England with the Law Commission and others. Please, please, to the extent to which any of you can lobby your regulators or your legislators to change the laws, to bring them into the 21st century in this area, it will be a phenomenal achievement. I mean, we're working, I often like to say, even in England, we're working with a law that was passed in 1873. I mean, give me a break, 1873 and we're in 2021. It's time those laws were updated. And so, please, all of you, we all have an obligation on our shoulders. We're on a mission, John. I know. I say so, you know. Exactly. It should be clear that our DLPC is just, you know, a stepping stone, a building block. Absolutely. And or the end. But it's something that is there to be used by the industry and in any way that we can help. We're delighted to. Yeah. Andrea, I was just to mention one additional word that I think it's really picturing the transition process, which digitalization is bringing to the industry is that inclusion. OK. Absolutely. I think, yeah, as a keyword, at the end, also, this conversation is showing that on the payment side with the electronic payment undertaking and on the digital payment commitment, on the other side, we may find, from a global perspective, common ground and common practices to make this operation interoperable, OK, also from a regulatory perspective. And I think on this side, we may push the industry to provide for this digital transformation, in other words, transition for inclusion. Inclusion, I would say, and cooperation. And also, let me tell you one thing, reciprocity. Let's say, if standards are different, what can change the status is also mutual acceptance of some differences. Innovation, well, John, you mentioned the 18th century. And I often tell everybody, petitioners and trade finance, it's funny to live in Tuscany because we did invent it. Let's secret it. In the 15th century, it's to go from Siena to Florence, which is about 65 kilometers, which might sounds a little funny. But structurally, let's credit remain, OK, not unchanged. Few changes being provided. But the basics are there. So gentlemen, are we going to chart the space? Are we going to introduce new instruments, new tools for everybody, both banks, both financial institution in the picture, to make it more seamless, to make it more smooth-less? Because, OK, let's credit to name one or an instrument. But they provide also with great security, not sold security, though, because there is a risk which is linked to the documents and you cannot calculate it. If we can escape this picture and solve these problems, the LPC might be one of the instruments. I'm a long-term trade finance petitioner, though, on the company side. And I remember those days in my companies, when you know, I was so afraid of bank reserves. Oh my god, you know, we had two banks. What about the first banks? Do you want to find banks? The confirming one, the banking importing countries. So the picture is somehow complicated. And in a world where you see the global trade moving massively for what, you know, towards the picture, it's based on e-commerce. Keep it simple. This could be an issue. You know, this could be a problem that these new instruments can contribute to, to solve, making much easier to all the participants in supply chain to make their life much easier. Because so far you see, take the whole picture, I'm asking Yako, I calculated, you know, there are more than 20, 30 actors in the whole chain. You know, they all participate in the picture. Can be more, can be more. Maybe more, can be more, you know. If you take for instance, the typical picture of an LPC, confirming bank, nocifying, they can be the nocifying bank. So, you know, in 21st century, to have an instrument, maybe more than one, that can make everybody's life much easier, let's go for it. And a way to make it work. Yeah, and Andre, you're actually then talking about the financial transaction, the payment instrument, the LC with the parties. But of course, on the logistic side, there are many, many more parties involved. It's even worse, Yako, I was mentioning this, I mean, trade finance massively logistics, you know, because it's so operative that it requires so much, there's many operations in it. So if you manage to keep it stable and make it, you know, all the actors involved, talk in a smoothest way, it's a great advantage. Exactly, and I think what's happening now is we, there's definitely, I wouldn't say a revolution, but there's an evolution in trade. And what you now see is that that evolution is accelerating and that is the really, really positive news. And the more we can all do, we can all do to accelerate the evolution, I think that's the thing that needs to be done. Yako, if you don't mind, I will leave it on to Brett, which was about to ask something, you know, the time is running out, I will make, you know, for two or three hours, this discussion because I think we hold it up. So, Brett. Yeah, thank you. So my name is... First of all, this is a very fast time, I see. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely, very nice to see you. And so my methods and my treatments really come from being a fan of the America top. And I listened to, you know, when we lost the America Cup, there was this talk over and over and over again about not reinventing the wheel, not reinventing the wheel. And so I'm just proposing to this group at this moment the ideas, the methods and the treatments of location. And I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel of finance. And so therefore I submit the idea of the postal system in the context of location. I know it sounds unusual, but I'm just an academic. I just can't get enough books. I think I had stacks of books when I was a child. I've always been a bookworm. And so in the context of trade and finance, I feel that location, not only that with the timestamp is key to essentially the adoption of the blockchain in trade and finance. And so I'm just trying to scratch the surface. I'm not trying to have an in-depth conversation. I'm merely trying to provoke in this conversation the constructs of location. Hi, you've provoked me for sure. I do not like the idea that the postal system has control of location. It's very politically bound. And location is so much more than- So you know that? So you know that? Okay, so- What are you in the US? Just a bit that knows. Okay, so yeah. Okay, is there anybody else? Is there anybody else that can I get? I feel like I'm deep sea fishing here. No? No worries. Brett, I would love to move forward. We have some other questions in the pipeline, which are- Very good, very good. Asking for answers actually. Shall we go through the very first one? Sorry. Let me record it. The very first one here. Can you elaborate legal enforceability aspects? Certificate of in-depthness and promissory notes are still paper-based, especially in terms of cool disputes with documents presented are paper-based. Good night. Andrej, we're still there. Yes, so in terms of legal enforceability, so there are two solutions. Actually, we have included in the DNI initiative. It's related first to the contract law. So that suggests the corporate and the bank sign an enhanced agreement or a new agreement to refer to the use of an electronic solution for the negotiable instrument as part of a contract, the same way as you would have electronic signature, introducing a change in the contractual relationship. And that is based on the template called the electronic payment undertaking template, wording that Sullivan has developed for the industry. So that's a contract law-based solution. And of course, the common law-based solution is where jurisdiction in question is accepting the use of electronic means for negotiable instruments. And that is possible in a limited number of countries, like the ones I mentioned by Rain, Abu Dhabi global markets now as a jurisdiction. And as Wit and John said, the Delaware solution is also worth mentioning. So of course that is a key step because it will reassure corporates that moving to those electronic solutions will protect them. So banks have made a lot of efforts to integrate technologies over the years, but as long as the corporates do not feel protected by law, they will prefer to continue using the safe and sound paper until they realize all the risks involved in dealing with paper, but that has been the practice. Changing is introducing risks. So the legal change is key. So whether the contract law is the best solution or the common law, I think that depends on the use case. In some cases, you don't need full negotiability because the bill of exchange is used as a collateral for SME financing. And you know, an SME would sign whatever. The bank is asking them to sign because they want the working capital facility and the bill of exchange can be used as a collateral. It will not be transferred. It will just be used in court in case the trade loan is not reimbursed. So that's a very simple use case. For other use cases, far more complex, cross-border trade and so on, then transferability is key. And the use of common law, we hear from some new alternative financiers, for instance, is required. Yeah, and I think this is a key point. And I just wanted to add to that just to talk about sort of our solution because it was actually conceived in order to comply with current legislations, right? And what we have seen so far is that we are complying with most of the laws we looked at. The only thing where we sort of typically will have a problem is if the law is not technology neutral. So that is the key thing at least for us. And this is why we are quite happy with the way things are in Europe, with the EIDAS regulation, which actually stipulates that an instrument like ours cannot be denied legal effect solely on the ground that it is digital. Thanks, Gunnar, and thanks for answering. This is another question, I don't know if I could answer this one, is how do you expect this initiative will have accelerated transition to CBDC? And how soon do you expect that CBDC will be both globally? I don't know, what was meant by BAU, that's the theme. Business as usual. Yeah, again, this is a very interesting topic, but it all depends on the regulators for sure. So it's good to see that BIS and major central banks and commercial banks are very busy on that front. So this is going to happen from a regulatory perspective that doesn't guarantee adoption by the market. But I think, again, depending on the use case, the use of those DLT-based payments will be very attractive, certainly as they are introduced by policymakers. So I remain very bullish, but again, it's a bit like real-time payments versus traditional payments. You only switch if it's easy to switch or if it's really important to switch, but changing habits takes time. And to the topic of switching, I couldn't agree more, André. So what we see with the electronic bills of lading in our case, sometimes the chain breaks and then the final buyer changes last minute. With us, there's always the option to go back to paper at a certain point within the flow. So then you also make it easier for people to start using e-bills of lading. If the whole ecosystem is on, super. But if something happens, you can still go back to paper. Then you're confronted with a paper bill of lading who you can use in the normal old-fashioned way. So I think also thinking about the what-if scenario, what if the chain breaks? What if, for instance, a port authority or certain customers still would love to have the paper and put a rubber stamp on it because they charge for it. You should also be able to cater for those scenarios. And if, because then you're really supporting the transition. Sorry, that was a question. John was on raise hands. Well, thank you, André. André, thank you very much. Now, I just wanted to say to all on the call, if you are interested in CBDCs, central bank, you know, distributed currencies, digital currencies, sorry, please look on the BIS website. There is a conference coming out, BIS Innovation Summit on the 22nd to the 25th of this month. It's free to, it's digital free. And it will, it is going to go into CBDCs in some detail with some very serious speakers at that summit. And I think we'll all learn quite a lot from it. And I just wanted to- The BIS is also providing tons of material, you know, tons of papers on CBDC. There's a lot of activities also depicting what's going on in several areas and several, you know, key countries as well, you know, they're ready almost at the stage of real adoption in terms of CBDC. There's another question, technical one actually, how endorsement of the instrument will work to provide security, credit and enhancement? Well, André, or maybe Jaco. Yeah, just a quick one from me. So as I mentioned, we could add any type of electronic signatures to our documents the same way as you endorse a bill of exchange. It's the same thing, at least in our solution. In terms of credit enhancement, the question you just raised, if I got this right, I think any enhanced visibility and tracking of flows, information flows or assets will facilitate the credit process because it enriches the understanding of the supply chain or the payment. There's no doubt that the logistics space and we experienced that on Amazon as well or e-commerce sites, we get full tracking of our deliveries and it took a swift also, swift also released the GPI, which is a tracking of payments and platforms like Bolero and others are providing also tracking of instruments and full visibility and guaranteeing ownership through contractual frameworks, whether they are proprietary to platforms or open doesn't matter. It reinforcing the visibility and the certainty and there are some also tracking of shipments now at a package level that should also feed the credit process. It is somehow the trend that I was mentioning in regard in the LLC, we're moving towards a picture that is deeply derived from the e-commerce. That's the trend I am seeing, full visibility, full traceability, both from payments, both from logistics side as well. So it's a whole movement that is about to be conveyed towards this direction. Yeah, and also from a credit enhancement. So what we have is, you know, a part you can use an electronic bill of lading with us, you know, the same way as a paper bill of lading endorsing, splitting, cutting, anything there. What we have extra is that we also have a pledge functionality. So for instance, the bill of lading can be pledged over the bleeder platform, for instance, to a bank or to a lender to act as collateral for financing. And then the lender is absolutely sure that that bill of lading can only be pledged once because that's another issue out there in the trade finance world right now, of course, double financing risks and things like that. You know, so that again, it's where, you know, digitization can help as well. Double financing. I mean, we've seen a few problems recently here. I guess we're referring to the same thing. Yeah, it's a funny thing being from the same environment, you know, which is very fun. And so definitely, yes, I share your thoughts. There's a few more questions I would like to give answer to. One is how do you manage patterns around interoperability? Dragon chain owns the base patterns for one-to-one and one-to-many. It's a question related to patterns, this one. Yeah, that's a very tricky one to take. So that's why I asked it. Yes. You're me, Linda. You touched the sensitive point. No, it's not sensitive at all, but I think we need to know exactly what we talk about. Yeah, so we can pick up our flying, Linda, that I'm happy to do that. Yeah, I would enjoy that. And it is something where I know we have this sense that if technology is to be used freely globally, it should be open sourced, right? And, you know, Dragon chain was actually open sourced out of Disney originally. And since then, they have executed some patterns that are around that interoperability. And so I'm very curious because I'm actually speaking on the pattern impact in the blockchain space and I know someone has their, sorry, somebody needs to mute, they're really loud. I was telling this, please mute because otherwise it's going to be quite a great problem to hear from the speakers. Sorry, Linda, I didn't want to interrupt you. No, no worries. And thank you for this opportunity because I think it is one of the most impactful things we need to address as a community because they're starting to be not just, you know, there's obviously Bank of America has loads of blockchain based patents and, you know, there's different banks globally that have gone that route. And I see patents, they can be a stranglehold on innovation but they can also really facilitate things being rolled out in a much more standardized way. And we've seen the issue with a bunch of different platforms where you have, you know, somebody putting something in a verifiable way on this platform and then they go do it on this platform and you had that double, anyway, we don't need to get into the junk that's happened but if there's not a standard and, you know, a national standard and hopefully even a global standard, we are going to keep running into this morass. And so I think there are some innovations, you know, the double triple, you know, quad ledger entry system became a standard. Well, the quad hasn't become a standard yet. Triple ledgers is starting to become a standard in some areas, but we need to be prepared for this continuation of innovation and the patents are playing a role in that. And I think if we don't aggressively address that as a global community, we're setting ourselves up for failure in many areas, because we're gonna be setting standards that are obsolete already because of where innovation is progressing. So yeah, I know it's challenging. Yeah, I completely agree. I mean, I'm 100% behind what Linda is saying. This is what I was talking about earlier. I mean, I came to this call and I kind of saw reflections of what we have done in which what Gunnar was trying to do. And I'm trying to figure out how is this all gonna work because there are a dozen companies around the world trying to do something similar. How will these systems talk to each other? And I'm completely lost. And what I'm afraid of is something that we started with in Andrea's call today, where he was talking about platforms moving to DLTs. And if there are multiple DLTs, then are we back to pseudo platforms? Yeah, that's a key question. Now, of course, a white one to be answered in a single session. Thanks, Linda, for these insights. I mean, it's good information and further maybe meetings in the future focusing on these, of course. We can share, I mean, insights together, separately and agree on what to touch in the future to come because as a C group, we are basically focused on epic region, but as a chipper, now we love all to cover Europe and the Americas because I know lots of things are going on here. So if we don't move globally, I'm afraid we go on to miss something. Most probably the very final goal of all these initiatives. So thanks for these insights, Linda. This is a few more questions. I would like to give an answer to one is from Tony Brown. Has the evolved being digitized or it might apply to a digital bill of exchange? I would love to answer this question. I haven't seen it being digitalized at all yet. That's why I was also interested in the Delaware law because the challenge with bills of exchange is it's one thing that you issue a bill of exchange. You owe me and then when it's accepted, it becomes an IOU and then of course it can be avaliased and it can be sold off and what have you. So it's more than just this little document. It's also what you can do with it. And that's in general always the issue. So I haven't heard it, but maybe Kunar and Andre have heard it. I actually missed the question. Sorry for this. Has the evolved being digitized as it might apply to a digital bill of exchange? The avalization, is that also? The avalization process. You know, we have avaliased bills of exchange internationally. And I think from my perspective, I mean an evolved could basically be an electronic signature. What do you think somehow it is? Yes. Of course, because the bank signs on the instrument. And therefore. Guarantees, I mean. Yes. One more. Andrea, I actually have just a very, very quick suggestion. I think we touch on the regulatory perspective. We covered almost the most important point. I would like just to ask, look for some sort of confirmation. We were speaking about a sort of enablers that could simplify the adoption, okay? From the regulatory perspective of electronic records. And we have following the international law, the UNICIP model law on electronic transferable records. So I was also wondering if the European payment undertaking and the digital ledger payment commitment were complying with the provision set for in. So just very quick. On my side. Yes, definitely on the MLTR, the countries are embedding the provisions of MLTR in very specific ways, because it's not like a copy paste of those provisions. But the spirit of the MLTR is definitely the basis for those countries to change their own law. So we are tracking indeed, so far the list is not long. The number of jurisdictions that are doing that. But definitely we rely on MLTR for that purpose. And the electronic payment undertaking has been developed as a functional equivalent. Perhaps Andrea, I could answer on the DLPC. It's certainly my understanding that the DLPC meets the criteria of the MLTR. I've not seen a formal legal opinion to that effect I should add. But it certainly, I've looked closely at it and believe that if the indicators within the BAF documents are followed, the DLPC would satisfy the requirements. I should also add, because if I may, that the DLPC is open sourced. We were very sensitive to this whole question of intellectual property rights and we decided or other BAF decided that it should be an open sourced instrument. And therefore it's available for any of you to use. Great, thank you, John. It is so much. Thank you. Thank you all for Andrea. I don't know whether we have time. We're just running out of time quickly. It's already been an hour and a half. There are two more questions to be answered. One is from Bob once again. It's confirmation, insurance, endorsement, are open techniques of enhancement. They became attributes of instruments. Let's just note maybe. Okay, sorry. My computer is messing up a little bit. Otherwise we can answer the questions by email afterwards. Yeah, maybe yes. Because it's somehow, I think it's time. I mean, we had a few insights during the discussion. It was a good one. So for me, if you do agree, I would call it over. I mean, it's missing. It was my pleasure to have you all here in the discussion. It was very, very insightful. We have very good attendance. Thank you very much. Excellent program. Excellent. Thank you. Lots to continue. Lots to follow up on. Yes, just one final note. We're going to go for more meetings like these. I'm on the 24th. We joined forces with Cable Markets and a very interesting subject named ISO 2022. So I invite you all to join us in this further call. It's going to take place in the afternoon here in Italy. So you're welcome to join us again very soon. I'll be posting so much on that. So go for it, join us soon. My pleasure to join forces today with all of you. Thanks for joining us. And it was a pleasure to share inside with you, André. Go on again and Jaco. Thanks so much for contributing to this discussion. Thanks, everyone. Thank you, all of you. Thank you, everyone. Stay safe. We still have a second. Have a nice evening. Bye. André, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Hey, Christian. Hey, good evening, I guess. That's good morning for me, but... Yeah, you're performing. So by a very quick way of introduction, we are investors in web-free technologies and they're specifically valued for technology. So what people usually refer to as blockchain, we have a much more nuanced framework on these things. But so we've been at this for some time. For a few technology investing for some 20 years, we'll focus on peer-to-peer solutions specifically. So the larger point here being is what I observe on a daily basis, and I'm a board member for a couple of standards organizations. I also structure most of our Fintech program. But the larger point here is what we consistently see is the obvious ignorance of the emerging web-free layers. So what I mean by that specifically, so the new Vaptopology will work on cryptographic implements under owner control. So they are specifically, DITs and blockchains are not viable in terms of touching PII. So when it comes down to onboarding legacy instruments, such as PIV, you need to store these as let's call it NFTs for this particular discussion. So cryptographic permits are under owner control that you can verify, certify. Again, there's about 2,000 layers involved there. That's why unfortunately there's not a common taxonomy around that, which is something that we're working on with three different groups right now to develop this taxonomy. So the larger point here is that the critical layers, the agency attribution layer that we are developing, right? And that refers back to this topic what people typically refer to as identity, which is sort of nonsensible because it's not about identity, it's about agency and attribution. Did we listen where? Oh, I just don't see you. Okay. No, no, no, I'm here. I'm here. So the larger point here is, and I observed this on a daily basis and for years now it becomes really bothersome to me. So 99% of the topics discussed don't actually matter because they aren't viable. So one particular point here just to point out one random, one that we're intently involved with, I'm a board member at OpenTribal, we said the persons that did exchange standards. So we're going to extend those to include biometrics and health data. So the larger point here being is any definitions of assets and any standardization of assets relevant. What I mean by that is they're only relevant as far as it pertains to an individual or an entity. So think of it as a slot on a game character. As long as you don't have those, it doesn't matter what you're doing on the asset side. And so that's also, I'm guiding the more important CBDC developments. So I'm teaching this at the Frankfurt School of Finance and I'm interfacing with the guys at Denver on that topic. And that's the same problem that we're seeing. These systems are key lock systems. And so the key is the identity is the onboarding of biometrics and then the attribution to the observable interactivity of those layers. So the overall topic here is the reversal of the quality attention. So the new network technology will no longer treat individuals as oracles in the system. And again, so this comes down to unless you're talking about agency attribution layers, none of these discussions will have any relevance in the context of value plans. Because value plans to only exist in the context of identity and or entity, right? Which all entities are comprised of identities. So that's probably way to high level. I gave like hour long talks on a dozen of these concepts separately, but I would love to get more knowledge around these topics because this for us, like specifically your topic, it's on our short list of investment. So we already made investments in biometrics. I've been guiding the financing AI system local year for a number of years, right? So that they do AI onboarding of these documents, classifying them, and so forth. And that can be done with the president. Anyway, so my point is simply, it would be good to have a primer for everybody to understand the new network technology that we clearly see emerging, right? So that people can stop wasting their time on things that really don't matter. Christian, the only thing I can add from side thanks for this final contribution was still upstream. I would love to have a conversation with you separately over the next weeks, I mean, if you're free to join me on a call. We can agree through LinkedIn, of course, my pleasure to have you maybe organize one more session with you speaking, because I would love to hear more into this and what you are doing in California. I've been hearing about you in the past. So it would mean a pleasure to exchange a few hints. And actually one of our portfolio companies, actually our biometric company is in Italy. You're in Italy, right? Yes, you might know them key less. So it's one of our companies, the biometric onboarding. Perfect. Christian, I'll be reaching out for you shortly after this conversation and my pleasure to start talking and to organize something all together to see, I mean, what you are doing, because I'm really interested. Yeah, for me, it's like the passion is to get this topic, right? And by this topic, I mean developing the World Wide Web for the first time, right? I think people don't realize that we never developed it. What you're looking at is a commercial web, right? And we need to fix that. We'll stick to the times lots, Christian. I will give you a message very soon. Thanks for being here first of all and for contributing with this last message. Thank you so much. All right. Thanks, I'm going to talk to you soon. See you soon. Bye, everybody.