 Rai, rai, rai, rai, rai. Rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai. Rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, rai, r and how much needs to be done, therefore how much needs to be spent to deliver business value for our clients. So the ecosystem that is associated with FTC3, Kausea, Glue 42, Openfin, they are to us a platform that we build within front office trading applications for our clients. And back in the long, long ago in 2012-13, when a few of us were at Deutsche Bank, we implemented something for Deutsche Bank that was very similar to what Openfin went on to provide a few years later, which is the HTML5 runtime container that has created this wonderful ecosystem that we all live in today. And those things, although we may not recognise them as such, are what I think of as the platforms in our industry that we use as a group to build on top things that actually matter to our users, that actually create business value. It's not that exciting having a group of C++ engineers inside your organisation keeping up to date with Chromium, integrating bug fixes, integrating with all your internal technology, it's much better to have a firm build that, create an ecosystem, and then build on top the bits that you actually use to differentiate with your own market, with your own clients. And so it's in that lens, through that lens that we see FTC3 as a platform, as an enabler, to drive real business value for our clients. Chris later on this afternoon is going to give a fantastic talk on what FTC3 is itself. I'm not going to talk too much about that from a technical perspective. I want to talk about what it can do for users, not necessarily users who even understand what the technology is. Developers are users of FTC3, of course, but the primary audience are people that stitch together workflow, experience, improve their business actions, improve their day-to-day business through the use of what we build collectively as a group on top of FTC3 to solve their business problems. And that really is the point of this talk. What I wanted to do today when I saw that we were going to be back in a room together was inflict myself upon you all for half an hour and do so by championing the firms in the industry who are doing great things on top of and around FTC3. So that's what I've spent the last few weeks doing. We see a huge amount of benefit from the standardisation that FTC3 brings. There has been work in and around this space for the last 10, 15 years in financial services in capital markets engineering, I think, but it has often been proprietary and led by a single firm who knew that it was not the answer, that they were never going to get huge upkeep. There was no way that a large Tier 1 sellside, if they'd gone and implemented something like FTC3, was going to get their buy-side counterparties and buy-side competitors. Coming together like we are all today without an intermediary like FINOS and the creation of the FTC3 standard. So it's important that we don't forget that as well, that there is value in the standard and it stops a lot of awkward conversations from happening elsewhere in the organisations that we exist in. It's really great to see the fact that FTC3 gets top billing or almost top billing at FINOS and this conference over the last couple of days, we've seen today. I'm told that it's going to be just as a focal point at OSSF in New York next month and equally, it sounds like it will be very given a lot of focus at Symphony, innovate either the following or the preceding week. I'm not sure which, but it's getting a lot of billing, which is fantastic. Proceeding week. Thank you very much, Lucy. So, what's the point of this talk? Well, we want to increase the speed of FTC3 uptake and indeed the speed of innovation within FTC3. We want to champion the great work and vision of FINOS members who are out there doing work on the ground and maybe expose some of the problems that they're facing that aren't being brought to the programme committee and the working groups. We want to shift focus, as I mentioned, from vendor value, if you'll apologise for me for being so blunt, to user value so that we get more uptake and start seeing some real benefits in a flywheel created of user force. So, what are we going to cover? I've spoken to, over the last couple of weeks, NatWest Markets, State Street and RBC who were very kind to volunteer their time as well as be sort of get into the spirit of things at OSSF and talk about their strategy and talk about their roadmap. I've listened to them, written down on what I think they said to me. Any mistakes that are introduced to the transcription effect are entirely mine. They have entirely plausible deniability about anything that I go about saying. And we're very fortunate here to have Sachin from State Street who is going to speak on State Street's behalf rather than me doing it for them, which is fantastic as well. And then very quickly we'll touch on some conclusions as well if you think I'm qualified at all to make any. So, on we go, let's start with NatWest Markets. So, what is the vision for FTC3 at NatWest Markets? Well, very interesting. They consider the vision to be all about enabling something you can do tomorrow that you can't do today. They gate all funding decisions based on the answer to that question and as to whether the answer to that question is a compelling one for the amount of money they have to invest. So, it's a pretty clear case and those users are salespeople, traders and their clients. It's not about us in IT having an ivory tower and having a lot of fun with cool gadgets. What they're trying to do is make it really focused on user value, fantastic and they've been pretty focused about the users they're concentrating on as well. And it has to be said that FTC3 is a key component of this, of this way of thinking, but it's not the only way they're achieving those goals, but I didn't get into any of that. But there is a wider initiative there as well. So, they have a couple of initiatives that came out in the conversations I had with them. The first was around creating context everywhere. So, they want to drive key user journeys and workflows for their users, those three groups of people I mentioned, sales, trading and pretty critically, external clients. And they want to enable the transparent sharing context between their applications and turn-on applications to configure workspaces with a given context. So, some of the things that came out in conversation with the team were, for example, bringing forward the counterparty based on client interactions. If you're a salesperson, you are dealing with a call with a client. One of your many automated VoIP telephony systems works like magic to bring that client's details to the fore after picking up the incoming call as an event, auto-populating that client context for various purposes like research and trade history. So, that is a fairly common desire to try to create a sales cockpit, a sales dashboard, anything that improves the CRM ability of salespeople in the firm to deal with their clients in a more effective way. People have been doing this for quite some number of years. It's not necessarily novel in and of itself, but the technology that they're using now is designed to enable that to happen across the bank all at once without a lot of scheduling overhead, which is a big benefit of FTC3. Interestingly, they're trying to do so in a platform agnostic way. So, they're trying to build an agnostic FTC3 intra-op implementation. They're calling it Backplane. It was mentioned yesterday at the working group that hopefully some of us managed to attend. I caught the second half of it. They're providing an FTC3 intra-op bus independent of Koziak and Openfin, which are the platforms they have internally, and also enabling them to interrupt with existing legacy applications. Interestingly, they still have the use case of making context move between a user with two different desktops stuck under their desk. So, they still have the problem of large, heavy monolithic applications that need their own machine to run, take that multitasking vision of the future to be able to share context between them and move trade details, order details, et cetera, et cetera, rather than two keyboards and copying and pasting, et cetera, et cetera. So, that's interesting that even though we're still, we're now firmly into a hybrid work remote, work from anywhere world, there's still a collection of users that need to be served who have two desktops sitting under their machine. So, they want to broadcast context and intents between various desktop containers all on the same user space which may indeed stretch across two different desktops, which is very interesting. The second initiative that we discussed is around application discovery. So, this is obviously based on intents, the intent part of the FTC3 specification. So, that means that applications can register and serve particular intents doing so in a late-bound fashion all done via an open standard and in the end across firms as well, which is fantastic. Now, they have a very interesting value driver here which is great beyond just enabling workflow for the user desktop, enabling more things to happen. They also see this as a real opportunity to drive total cost of ownership reduction by removing duplicate functionality. So, they think that by getting applications and capabilities into an intent dictionary and an intent library, they can figure out where equal capabilities are being surfaced and can remove duplicate spend. That obviously requires them to create the centralised store and drive internal participation. But it's very interesting to see that there's a sophistication of thought there that if you manage to get things centralised and have a thousand flowers bloom, you can then start reducing cost because you don't have everyone building the same charting or the same CRM infrastructure, which is very interesting. Further into the future there, they have a goal that every monolithic app is intended to be simplified and broken down into micro front-ends and exposing inter-app functionality and capability via FTC3. They are very focused, interestingly, on accessing their clients. So, they are not a Tier 1 universal who can afford to build a huge STP. They know that by using non-proprietary tech and a semantic standard, FTC3, they can deploy functionality onto their clients' desktops with integrations that their client can configure and use themselves. And this would be very difficult with a proprietary standard. They see this as a real digital channel and a route to market to access their clients, which is really interesting. Furthermore, they want to enable features that can be used to support both, for example, rates, and then where it can be easily duplicated for FX without a loss of functionality or loss of generality, I should say. By making the API for these different components FTC3, they feel that they can relatively easily see the subset of functionality that works in both the rates in the FX world. They want to enable non-product-specific or agnostic features that work across clients and asset classes. And they want to enable cross-product workflows, i.e. components that are common to both product types that can be serviced in both areas. And then, obviously, following on from that, figuring out which one is the best and reducing spend where different asset classes are engaged in exactly the same business functionality delivery. So, that's NatWest Markets. I'm going to hand over to Sarchin to speak to State Street. And then I'll come back and finish off with RBC. Sarchin, over to you. Cool. Thanks, Matt. Hi, everyone. I'm Sarchin, a software-developing leader at GlobalLink State Street. At GlobalLink, we run a bunch of trading and analytics platforms like FXConnect, CurrentX and BestX. Earlier this year, we kicked off a project to build a GlobalLink desktop application for our end-users. And that's when we came across FTC3. What we are looking to do is provide a unified and integrated experience to end-users. So, this is where this project in GlobalLink is different from a lot of the initial implementations based on FTC3, where we're going to the end-users outside the organisation with FTC3 and providing them the benefits. Now, it became obvious quite quickly that it was common sense to use FTC3 as foundation for our interrupt capabilities within the application. So, our APIs within the GlobalLink desktop platform or application, I should say, are inspired by FTC3. We are using context-sharing based on broadcasting and by raising and registering intents. We're doing context-sharing based on instrument IDs, order IDs and trade IDs to give trader that unified experience that they thrive for or they look forward to. We also use registering and raising intents for workflows like free-trade analytics, which is allowing FX Connect and Best Text to work very nicely together. So, other areas where we're using FTC3 is for our command-based interaction in the GlobalLink desktop platform. So, that too is built around FTC3. Now, where do we think the road ahead leads, right? So, as an organisation, it's quite apparent that we are invested in FTC3 and we want to do our best to contribute towards the evolution. We are setting up or we are leaning towards setting up an inner-source project within the organisation which aligns with FTC3 committee and the Finos implementation, hoping to be a Finos member if the budget gets approved. And some of the areas, we have had some feedback from a lot of partners, you know, by-side firms. And a common theme across, you know, them touches upon two primary areas. First one is their concern around access management, right? So, they want to have more say in what kind of applications, you know, do they communicate with. Now, container platforms like VINSTAMBL, they have done great job in coming up with the initial implementation. But we think it will add a lot of value and it will future-proof the work if this became part of the FTC3 standard. The next area is enriching the context definitions, right? So, where we see, we see a big role for FTC3 in modernising the legacy bilateral, you know, rigid integrations and move towards, you know, open integrations. And this is where we think, you know, if we had a richer set of context definitions, that would, you know, take away those pitfalls and provide us the real benefit. Now, our hope is that, as the community grows, that will happen naturally. So, we're looking quite, you know, we're looking forward to it and be a part of the FTC3 journey. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Sachin. Any applause for Sachin? He's not going to come back on stage. Thank you all very much. So, RBC to round us out today. So, what is the vision for FTC3 at RBC? Very thoughtful is how I would summarise it. Very thoughtful indeed. They are focusing initially on internal cross-application communications. And they are using FTC3 to stop internal arguments. That's my paraphrase of what they've said, but it's certainly something we use FTC3 for when we go in and do an engagement with clients. So, if we can bring in an external standard to say this is how it works, you save, on average, six to 12 months of a lot of very reasonable technologists all having very reasonable arguments about things that don't actually matter that much. Which is a lot of fun, but in terms of delivering business value, really the outcome that people are paying us for. So, at RBC, they are using FTC3 to not reinvent the world. If they're having apps talking to each other, then they will be mandating, or they are mandating, I should say, that the way that those apps talk to each other is an FTC3 compliant payload. They treat each application itself as an external application to drive the right behaviour. So, if you have to interact, then you have to build a clean interface, and interrupt that way via FTC3. As though you were an external app coming into their ecosystem, and as though you are building a public-facing app that wants to interoperate with the external world. That's a very strong statement to make, and it's impressive that they're enforcing that mandate from the top down. They're using it as a forcing function, I should say, to check that it is the right place to do it on the UI as well. For the right place to do it, the right place to do that interoperability. From the sounds of things of doing sort of UI-driven or UI-exposed interoperability via the back-end. For those of us that have been down that road before, they know it's really hard work to do that first and then maintain it over time as back-ends drift. They see it as a much better place to do it on the front-end. If their view is that by making it an external interface, an external interface that comes in from Finos and the FTC3 group, the barrier is high enough, so that you get the right things to happen. It also means that legacy apps can partake and move to the new world in as seamless as possible, way as possible. In general, they view the FTC3 and the late-bound discoverability and sort of binding of functionality as a great way to reduce the scheduling burden of having different teams release binary interfaces or indeed back-end binary interfaces at the same time. That means from being bound to a certain cadence, i.e., the lowest common cadence of a group of teams delivering quite frequently from global locations. And they're seeing that by bringing in this rule and forcing FTC3, they are seeing actually far more integration happen where the server side isn't being controlled by the same team. So teams deploying software, different teams deploying software are now taking the time to interact with each other, where before when different teams were deploying back-end software, they weren't bothering. It was just too much hard work, which is fantastic. So they're seeing real business value come out of it. On the workflows and use cases, they are taking a slightly different tact than NatWest markets at the moment. They are wholly focused on risk across the back office and the front office. So they have at the moment lots of legacy platforms and around the risk world, unsurprisingly, doing lots of things, and they'd like to move them on to more strategic technology. FTC3, they see as a way to smooth that transition for the end-user experience. They want to share risk contracts, and indeed they led a working group yesterday where they were really getting into the detail of some of that functionality, which is fantastic. They want to share risk contracts, things like what positions are you clicking on, what type of risk are you looking at, and they want to crank up the payload detail in use cases here. So they're really going in very deep on this topic. And they want to present a, or build a common intent framework, a common action framework around information. So things like I've sent a message about a bond, there's a new trade on the blotter. They want to really define context even more richly on the front end, which is interesting. I really hope it works, and it's one of the things that's led me to a couple of the conclusions that I thought I would draw for discussion with you all based on the conversations I've had. I think it's really important that we figure out a way to bring the FTC3 plumbing that is going on in the different firms out of the banks and into Finos or into the vendors. Backplane is a really great example of something that's happening within a bank where they're solving a problem that is absolutely common across industry and should probably be promoted up into a different layer of the stack, so to speak. I know that if someone mentioned, spoke to you about this yesterday, Riko, it's fantastic, so maybe this is going to be an idea that gets some traction, but I think it's very important. That's something that I spotted through these conversations. It's not necessarily a useful way to go about happening across areas of opportunity for better collaboration. I think maybe we need to think about what the FTC3 community could think about getting technologists, be they adjacent to FTC3 or working on FTC3 itself, into the forum to talk about the adjacent work they are doing and being created. It seems like there might be a lot of discussion about FTC3 itself and the vendor ecosystem that implements it, but equally on the other side of the mirror or the other side of the line, there might be a lot of technologists doing a lot of very similar work that is restricting the acceleration of FTC3 and restricting the uptake, and it would be great to be able to figure out a way to capture that and promote it in a systematic way. Additionally, it would be good to release a verb noun intent context innovation. I think there is a lot of this happening within the firms that I've spoken to and anecdotally, just from talking about this talk over the last day and a half with people here, people have dropped in reference of different firms saying they've got 100 intents, I'd love to be able to share them, where do I go, where do I promote what I'm doing. So there's a lot more activity that's happening, there's a lot more that's being created and it's like now is the time to go back to that and make a real promotion out of it again, because there seems to be a lot of people looking for somewhere to share and maybe they don't necessarily want to be upgraded to, this is language I'm indenting on the fly, a first class intent that suddenly, that implies some sort of quality of support or guarantee of supporting that capability in the future in their app. It's still a really innovative space and we need to be prepared for things to go wrong and be broken and be rolled back. There is an idea of having two tiers of intent, something that's experimental and something that's in the standard and then we can drive uptake by things that really get picked up over the time through metrics. So one of the ways we could do this that we've seen within an organisation so within the same administrative area is by creating transparency into the intents and the context that are being used. You can get user statistics that let you then drive the promotion of different intents into a higher quality of service. So you could start allocating budget to teams to support that intent if they see that it's really getting picked up and used. And indeed you can depromote it and let teams stop supporting something that isn't getting used. There's a real risk here of people becoming the victims of their own success by promoting a very popular intent or capability and then suddenly being asked to serve the entire wider organisations demands for customisation and configuration which can kill a small teams productivity in the way they can move it at pace. Funny to be talking about success being the thing you least want to have happen, but it is a real risk. It's quite similar to the pattern we've seen over the years of trading systems or trading venues being built in small silos within an investment bank getting real traction in the market and then having the wider organisation all pile into them and immediately start failing because they just weren't built with that sort of option in mind and it can be a tricky thing to navigate. So one of the things I wanted to discuss and ask the group is if there is an initiative within FDC3 to collect runtime metrics to drive investment decisions in product backlog and obviously in a very anonymised fashion but it would be really interesting to see from groups of users if a company has 100 intents, categorise those, see what are the most popular and see if that pattern replicates itself in other organisations as well. So that was all I had for everyone today. Any questions or comments on what I'd said? Graham? Good to see you. How are you? It just gives a better experience and it lets you do things in a way to me the client side integration if done correctly is opportunistic or late bound and therefore opportunistic i.e. you get a network effect from having a standard lingua franca that lets you connect five different things without knowing each other and then suddenly having five times five possible outcomes to drive user experience. Service side integration, enterprise, service bus control over what can be published schema upgrades database template upgrades why would you want more of that in your life? It's just really slow, right? But if I'm a service side guy it's definitely what I want to do, that's my job I'm paid to do that. Sounds great. It's not a replacement for resistance towards moving to client side. This is somewhere, this is another area which we could utilize to synchronously update and create an audit of the messages or actions, any context sharing happening between that that would really help. So for us we will start with a customer implementation but again as part of that. I'm thinking about this lightweight client side I need to move and synchronize and people always have a camp upon a server guy everything should have on the server and vice versa that's generally how we can get clients to think about it turn through but for different reasons. DOI ganau, kanai, m'otei kuiaotis? Non, awa, awa, awa. Pa, ka, ka, ka. Pa, ka, ka, ka. Padaw sy'n rai, wat видеorungu. Aptaw i dinyiru. Padaw? O.a, o'r pa ydyn, o'r ndaibwau ydyn, o'r ytdur y Blaidwaith o'r yndaibwau ydyn, o'r ystai, o'r ystai, o'r ystai, o'r ystai, o'r ystai, o'r ystai, o'r ystai, o'r ystai, o'r ystai, tehniki imposibu, kus they're not that sort of firm to integrate with the back-end API. An if you can get stickability into a workflow when I use the desktop, from like a product perspective your clients aren't going to move off your product cos it's almost invisible to them and it just works the way they work. So that's, if you, and like the mobile advice is a great example of that with intents and the way you move between applications, it's a bit ropey, but they're doing their best, that's a big differentiate between. But if you're just internally focused, then you purely have a political battle for us, yeah, what do we want to answer? Any other comments from anyone else? No? Right? Thank you all very much.