 The first primary thing we're trying to accomplish is how can we protect digital currencies in a way that's perhaps a little better than the way we're protecting other systems today. You hear in the news all the time that we're being compromised. Even the most perceived secure organizations are falling to the attack. So for digital currencies, the money of the world, it needs to be protected in a way where we can have confidence that our money is safe. Today's security is very complex, it's very costly, it's very manual, and it's in its process, it's very decentralized, fragmented, all kinds of security standards, all over the place. Therefore, for small fintech companies, it's almost impossible for them to deal with the burden of security. So the task of the security and assurance working group is can we reduce that complexity while increasing the assurance level and decreasing the cost level? How can we expect this highly innovative industry to survive the burden of security, but it must, it must find a way. So collectively, we've adopted a new model that has been published in ITU, and we have a security validation platform that we're demonstrating as a method, a systematic formal based method to apply security to a digital currency. But it takes one fundamental approach that is different. It starts with the target itself. It starts with defining to a sufficient level of detail. What is it that we're protecting? And that tends to be one of the least things that organizations define for a number of reasons. Here, we're starting with what is it that we're trying to protect? And we're trying to find a common approach to protecting digital currencies. Are they truly all that different? Are we going to do what we've done in the past and treat them as if they're all different and not do the hard work to really identify what is common and where does something become different so that we can treat common areas with a prescribed set of security controls and give that to everyone as knowledge and look at the differences between a cryptocurrency and a central bank issue currency and where unique security measures have to be perhaps designed and applied because cryptocurrency or digital currencies in general, although they do rely on traditional infrastructure, have developed innovative consensus mechanisms on the side of cryptocurrency that we have to yet determine how best to protect. So there's a lot of new security that needs to be developed and there's a lot of old traditional infrastructure security that still needs to be there. How can all this massive collective knowledge be provided in a way that can be consumed by those companies developing these offerings? So for example, we have a work stream in the security and insurance working group on quantum safe cryptographic services. That is a common work stream that is looking at ensuring that these services that all digital currency types leverage are in fact safe but those cryptographic services are not different whether they're being provided to a cryptocurrency system or a CBDC system. We want to develop strong high assurance and confidence of protection knowledge for what is common, distribute that out and deal with the unique aspects of digital currencies. We are decomposing the target into its enabling value processes and value assets so that we can, so that everyone in security including the business people, the threat people, the protection people and the audit people can all look at the same thing and say oh that's what we're protecting. The target is everything and we're spending a lot of work in the security group defining the target. That seems a little odd but clearly if you don't understand the target how can you apply, well we're trying to call precision security. Today the security industry is based on notions where they apply a bit of confidentiality, integrity, availability but really the application of security is at a much detailed level and we want to know that effective controls are in fact in place. So we're trying to go and notional security is all you can sort of articulate if you don't understand the target but now since we are defining the target, creating a detailed understanding of it, we can now start thinking about precision security against specific threat vectors. Well the digital currency ontology matrix model is building on what I said earlier about the target. It's saying that all digital currency types must be described by a set of notions and distinctions. So we're trying to find and develop a matrix of notions and distinctions that describe all types from cryptocurrency to centrally issued digital currency and this matrix has a special property that when you specify the values of the distinctions in this matrix you define one unique digital currency type. So this ontology notion matrix defines all digital currency types in its notions and distinctions and when you give the values to those notions and distinctions it defines one unique digital currency type. So it's an again attempt to take a common approach to protecting digital currencies. This is the digital currency global initiative. It's not the cryptocurrency global initiative or the CBDC global initiative. We're all digital currencies and we're trying to quantify how architecture or technology change from policy decisions. So the ontology notion by design is trying to remove all that language like a wallet. How does a wallet that we know and familiar in the physical world hold digital currency? It's just old language being maintained in the new world. Well a wallet for me is just a digital currency store. Very boring but there's no debate about what that word means. So the ontology notion is to use that neutral language. What is it that describes all digital currency types? How can I specify one so that we can all talk to each other as an industry and look at cost and effect between various decisions around architecture and what that would imply in the actual deployment of the digital currency and of course the security and insurance working group leveraging that same ontology would know how to protect that component. Oh yes we know how to protect digital currency stores. We did that in the security and insurance working group. Here it is. So basically if you look at digital currencies you have the policy people. Who represent the issuers or the people that would run the currency. But you also have the architecture people, the technology people, the system design people, the system deployed operations. Before it becomes an actual currency that can be used there is a lot of decision making to the end product of what digital currency technologies and systems and even vendors will be used. So we want to be able to have a much easier conversation about cost and effect policy decisions and what that has as an effect on architecture and get that sort of language and relationship defined and accepted so that when the industry evolves at this incredible rate we're evolving in a lesser state of confusion. We have more understanding between each other of the fundamentals of things as opposed to dealing with that top layer of the language about people talking about everything. So we're trying to really bring that down to a set of finite components so that the problem so that we don't deal with the human induced complexity problem of everyone writing about it and really using different meanings in terms and we have this sort of body of knowledge which is very diverse is how can we normalize, render as common as possible the foundation of this work to allow really higher value analysis to occur with greater clarity.