 Okay, just let me know when I should start. Yeah, I'll let you know when it's live. Perfect, perfect. Okay, you're live on YouTube. Okay, well, welcome everybody. My name is Gunter. I'm the co-founder and CEO of Circular Tree. And our main mission is really to provide CO2 transparency with real supply chain data. This is what I'm going to present to you and I will be supported by our CTO, Evia Strele, who will take over after a few slides to explain the technology. And afterwards by Catherine, who is our CMO, and she will go to the steps where we are currently in and further developing our solution. Let's start with the problem. Carbon footprint is really a very, very hot topic and many companies are talking about carbon footprint and talking about that they want to become carbon neutral by whatever, 2030, 2035 or whenever. The problem with this is, this is only their own company carbon footprint. If you look at the product or service carbon footprint, there was a survey done by the Carbon Disclosure Project, 80% of the product carbon footprint typically comes through the supply chain and not from the company itself. So even if the company would reduce their carbon footprint to zero, you still would have these 80% carbon footprint from your supply chain. And here the challenge is there is no data available. If companies nowadays come up with a product carbon footprint, this is typically done by a life cycle assessment. This is sort of a consulting project where you take your product apart into its different pieces and then you typically look up the values in databases. In those databases, they're run by industry associations. There you have average data. And then you have two problems. The first problem is you don't have your true carbon footprint because your suppliers may be better or worse than the average data. The second and even even more important problem is you don't have any leverage to improve the carbon footprint of your supply chain data because you don't have the true value. And what you can't measure, you can't improve. And this is exactly where we come up with carbon block. We want to measure the real product carbon footprint through the supply chain. And then once we have the values, we have the means to reduce the real carbon footprint. And how this works is, I want to show you from a pilot project we've done with the startup autobahn and the first company is BASF company. They provided a granulate and they wrote down the product carbon footprint of the granulate into the carbon block system. Then we add the transportation, the carbon footprint of the transportation to the next supplier, which in this case was Motherson. Motherson reads the carbon footprint of the granulate. They add the carbon footprint. It takes them to make one bumper out of the granulate. And then they write down the carbon footprint of the bumper into the carbon block system. Then we add the transportation from carrying the bumper from Motherson to Porsche. Porsche can read the carbon footprint of this bumper. And then they have a true value of this carbon footprint. And if they do this with all of their suppliers, then Porsche can really have a real product carbon footprint based on real values. And then they can go to the next step. And the next step is really reducing it. And what are the measures to reduce it? First of all, they could say, well, maybe I try different materials. So instead of steel, I use plastic for example. And then they can say, okay, what is the best material with the lowest carbon footprint to use? They can make an agreement with their suppliers saying, okay, your product carbon footprint now is at that level. And let's agree to reduce the carbon footprint of your product by 40% every year, for example. Or if your suppliers don't want to agree with you on a reduction, you can say, okay, I'm looking for a different supplier who provides me the carbon footprint as a product with a lower carbon footprint. So these are the three main levers you have in order to reduce the carbon footprint. And what is very clear is with this system, you can create an incentive to your suppliers in reducing their carbon footprint because then it becomes a competitive advantage for them offering their product or their materials with a lower carbon footprint. And this is where we see the big impact of such a solution in order to reduce the overall carbon footprint of supply chains. This is sort of a dashboard, what we have created. And here you see, for example, scope one and scope two emissions. Those are the emissions which the company produces itself. These are the sort of 20% on average. Then you have the scope three emissions for the transportation. And then here you can see, this is a scope three emissions for input materials. And then you can go into a more detailed dashboard. For example, here's the material and suppliers. And here we have a list of all of our suppliers based on the biggest impact. And here we see a trend. So green downwards means, okay, this supplier is improving its product carbon footprint significantly. We also can put it here in a graph. The bigger the bubble is, the higher is the carbon footprint of the supplier. And if they are less than the target value what we have here, for example, 50%, then they are red. If they're better than they are green. And if they're small and not so big, then we have them yellow. So we can then say, okay, let's focus on the suppliers with the red bubbles because they have the biggest impact. There we can achieve the biggest improvements by working with them. But we can do the same on a material level. Here we have a graph. We choose a material and here we can see, okay, what is the real carbon footprint reduction? What is the supplier average? And here we can see this would be our target. So here we see this material is not yet on target. And with such tools, you can really help companies to find the most efficient ways in order to reduce their product carbon footprint. Now I want to hand over to Elias for showing you the technology behind it. Yeah, thank you. Hello from me as well. On the previous slides, you saw what our carbon block prototype looks like on the front to a user. And I'll dive a bit more into the technical details and try to explain how it works behind the scenes with a focus on why and how we use blockchain technology. So the key really to making this practical is to automate as much as possible. So to calculate the product carbon footprint, the company needs a lot of data and they do have this data available in different databases and the idea of carbon block is to use the data where it is. So we use existing databases and these connect to our carbon block calculation module. And another important point is that the calculations are run by the company itself. And once the product carbon footprint is calculated, it goes out into the larger world and into the carbon block system. So on the next slide, if you could go forward. Oh yeah, you see this larger idea. So we on tier X, we have this calculations, but of course also upstream and downstream in the supply chain. So next slide please. Yeah, let me get to the blockchain. So carbon block uses hyperlager fabric, which I guess you're glad to hear. And we use it to secure, automate and connect the product carbon footprints along the supply chains. And what we quickly found out when talking to customers is that we should offer two different options. The first one is maybe a bit closer to the original philosophy of blockchain. And this is the self-managed option. So in this case, the company would run the calculations locally and then once they have calculated a product carbon footprint, they would feed it into the blockchain by running their own hyperlager fabric node. But we also offer the second option of doing this as software as a service. Which makes a lot of sense for smaller customers. So in that case, they would run their calculations in a service we offer as circular tree. And then we would push this into the blockchain via our own hyperlager fabric node. And as I stated before, the data storage itself and the calculations occur off chain for one because those are not necessary to communicate across the supply chain. And the main reason is that this is sensitive information because companies certainly don't want to share all their production data or what their production processes look like. So all we can do is to exchange the final results of the calculations. And this is what we do and this is where we use blockchain. So let me go into a bit more into detail of what blockchain gives us here in the use case. In the next few slides, if you could go forward. So the first use case is that we can supply trust via the blockchain. This is a bit complex because PCFs can be very complex. And as I said, a lot of the data that goes into the calculation must remain secret. So we can't really do these calculations within a smart contract on the blockchain. But what we do instead is that we have an auditor rule. So selected auditors can verify the PCF calculations with the company and then prove them with a digital signature on the blockchain. So this is a digital seal of approval that the PCF has been calculated according to predefined standards. And we use smart contracts here to ensure that the product, current footprint and digital signature are linked. So other companies can really trust this and convince themselves that the signature is valid and hasn't been tampered with or forged by anyone. Then next slide, please. Our second use case is automation. Not so much of the calculation itself. This happens off-chain, as I said earlier, but off the cascading. Because if one company in the supply chain recalculates a PCF, for example, because they have become more sustainable and they have more efficient processes, for example, and they reduce their own product current footprint, this means that the product current footprint of all the products downstream in the supply chain also needs to be recalculated. And this is where we use smart contracts to trigger this cascading and make sure that updates are pushed forward from the first company that did a recalculation to all the other companies that depend on this product current footprint. And then the final slides from my side. Third application is interoperability. One nice thing about blockchain is that it's very standardized. You have one shared system. And in this system, you can open source the code of your smart contracts, and this allows us to provide a standardized interface to other PCF solutions, which is of course important to us because we won't be representing entire supply chains from the start. So we definitely need to be interoperable with other solutions. And we can do this by connecting via the blockchain because all the data and all the information that goes there is standardized and has an open source basis. So we can integrate our solution into a network of networks. Yeah, that was a quick dive into Cardblog and Hyperledger Fabric and how we use blockchain and our Catherine will continue. Thank you, Elias. We just, we're sitting next to each other in one room, go ahead and me. So let's continue with what you are currently doing. We are working together with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. And they invited us as an so-called innovation member. And what you can see here is screenshots from the first one is their vision paper. We can also send them you via email. It's just like everywhere available. And the other one is a YouTube video, what the project is about. What you can see here already is the members. We've got a lot of new members, but you can already see big companies such as PSF, Chef Run, Dow Chemicals, Nestle, Unilever and so on. But also other software providers, Microsoft, IPM and SAP are looking together with us to get the solution. And the project is divided into three working groups. The first one is about the methodology. So how to measure a product carbon footprint basically in between companies in the same way so that everyone really measures, so to say the same emissions. And here it's very much dependent or let's say comparable to LCA data. So the product analyzed from a product perspective instead of just a company perspective. The second working group is to develop open technology standards that allow for secure data exchange across different technology solution. That's exactly what Elias was talking about with the interoperability. So as already said, we're working together with IBM, SAP and Microsoft and Google just joined to get an open technology standard. And the third one is to reach a wide ecosystem. Of course, the system lives from the data and the more companies are part of the whole system, the more accurate the whole data are getting. And we're starting basically with a fast move in the consumer goods industry but we wanna scale up fast and then of course, it's also a solution for all the other industries. And what our solution actually values is firstly, of course, become more sustainable. The web business console also offers a lot of industry surveys and stuff like this. And they just got the results that you can reduce your product carbon footprint by 25% with using standardized methodologies such as we are currently developing. Then of course, you can basically give it back to the consumer until end of life to get your product more sustainable. Then the procurement has much more options to, let's say to compare material on suppliers, I will come back to that in a second. Then of course, also investors are much more interested nowadays to invest in more sustainable companies product solutions. So that's a very big advantage for the companies who are part of this project. Marketing and sales is also very much dependent on the consumer. So consumers are nowadays ready to pay premium and they prefer more sustainable products. Also R&D and innovation cycles are getting much more efficient. Same as the corporate reporting if you do have automated PCF calculations, you're getting much, much more efficient processes especially in reporting parts. And last but not least is the employee engagement. Employees are very much motivated to work for a company which acts more sustainable. Besides those values, we do have also financial value opportunities that is also from the WBCSD vision paper. Firstly, we have one to 2% of revenue per year of avoided offsetting spend. Cause I mean, if the company is getting more sustainable and avoid emissions and they really reach those 25% of less product coming footprint, they have to pay less offsetting. A second one is top line growth that it goes hand in hand with the fact that consumers pay more for more sustainable products and are willing to purchase the sustainable products. So it's one to 3% of revenue per year for top line growth. And the third financial opportunity is cost savings of two to five million euros per year. That goes hand in hand with a more efficient reporting that companies can use the automated processes and calculations. So that is our team. It's basically the three of us who just presented the solution and Guntas brother who founded together with them and circulatory acts as advisor and do a young is a software architect who is supporting some of our projects. We do have also some other project but we're currently focusing very much on carbon block. Yeah, we're happy to answer any kind of questions and hope you enjoyed our talk. Thank you very much, Guntas and Elias. It was a great presentation and I would give the word to the crew if there are any questions and regards your presentations. Otherwise, I have some prepared and then I was ready to start. This is Jeff, I have a question. I missed the beginning, my apologies but it sounds like what you've created is kind of an input output table. Does that make sense to you? Are you familiar with input output analysis? Sort of, yes. I think you could say that, yes. And it becomes a very hard thing to measure all these things. I mean, you can measure obviously carbon coming out of a smokestack but you can't measure, you know, if one factory produces a widget using hand labor and one produces it using automation, do you, how do you factor in the various carbon that was created to produce the automation? Well, I think, thank you for the question but typically if you go with the emissions you have scope one, scope two and scope three emissions. And scope one emissions are all the emissions which a company really produces by themselves on their premises. So for example, if they burn oil or gas, it's scope one emissions. The second thing is scope two emissions that means if they purchase energy, then the emissions of this energy are calculated under scope two emissions. And scope one and scope two emissions are really the company emissions. And this is what's typically, what's typically being reported nowadays by most of the companies. On top of that, thank you for Katrin, she's just sharing his life here. On top of this, you have scope three emissions and the scope three emissions are divided by scope three upstream and scope three downstream. That means scope three upstream is all what comes into from your suppliers and scope three downstream is everything which comes after you have sold your product in the life cycle of the product. And here we are focusing on the scope three upstream emission for purchase goods and services. This is really the majority of the scope three upstream emissions plus the transportation. And what you're saying is scope one and scope two emissions, most companies can really calculate those emissions fairly well. This is typically not that much of a problem. What's a little bit more difficult, and this is part of the World Business Council pass finder project, is breaking the emissions down into a certain product. This is what is a little bit more complicated especially if you go into the chemical industry, if you for example, have three or four input fluids into one gasket, gasket you say, and then you have two or three output fluids or gases for example, how do you distribute the input emissions to the output emissions? This is a challenge in the chemical industry the discrete industry where you just assemble things it's fairly easy then you just need to add it up. But this is part of the World Business Council project to really achieve the standardized calculation methodologies. Yeah, well I guess I was looking at what I would call for the moment scope four which is infrastructure. If one factory uses a certain machine and another factory doesn't what about the emissions needed to create that machine? It's not part of the goods and services process flow it's infrastructure. But some infrastructure costs a lot of money and creates a lot of carbon emissions and some infrastructure doesn't. Well, this is actually part of the capital goods what you're saying. However, based on our experience what we have talked also in this project it's actually not that much because you can typically use the infrastructure for many, many, many products. So even if the emissions might be high on the first glance you can certainly appreciate this over a long time and over many, many products from a theoretical point of view you are right and they are here as part of the scope three indirect which is called the capital goods essentially. This is all the machines and equipment you have. All right, well, thank you. Yep. And just, we are starting with those two categories because we believe those are the most important categories but that does not mean that we will stop with those categories. We will certainly add the other categories over time as well but we just want to get system started and start with low hanging fruits to be able to help companies to achieve results fast and this is why we're focusing on the first step on those two. I'll jump in, I guess. This is a really great presentation. I thought it was really clear. I think obviously the space that you are developing solutions for it is enormous, right? And you're talking about kind of or working to scale up to just about every industry that's out there. And so one of the things that I was so interested in kind of talking to you about and kind of exploring is with our special interest group we're always looking for opportunities to partner and kind of work on real solutions with corporate players and definitely the solutions that you're working on especially something like the three different categories that you described with the working group are definitely right within our wheelhouse. And so I'm always trying to work to find interesting projects that we can kind of package up and use to kind of reach out and find new people who are interested in kind of working on. So I'm kind of curious how we might collaborate and support some of the work that you're doing as you move forward and kind of find some of the projects that makes sense that we could kind of devote some interest to in some just work on. So I'm curious to see how we might work with you. Yeah, I think this is a very good point and this is certainly also part of our interest to see how we can really find common benefits with your working group. I think there are two ways. I think the distribution part that will be certainly open source technology. It has to be open source technology. And this is where we are just at the beginning. We are at the moment establishing an architecture working group with the other three players like Microsoft, IBM and SAP. And there we will decide on how do we want to develop those open standards. And this is certainly one of the things where we could bring in the climate to action group from you to see whether we could collaborate in this area with you. This is however, not only our decision, as I said, is it wants to be a joint decision with other partners. But certainly we will mention and they know already that we're in contact with you anyway. So great, great. Excited about it. Yeah, definitely we are as well. Yes, Kander, Tom has another question regards to the third party validation. So Tom, maybe you wanna ask a question too. Thanks, Robin and thanks folks from Stricular Tree there, this is good. So my question is there was one chart, I think when you were talking about value proposition, you talked about auditors. And so if you could explain what auditors mean, is this some third party verification framework out there or is this something that you wanna set up or is it some sort of self-validation that has some AI behind it to make sure things aren't getting fraudulent? What are you guys thinking on the auditor stage there? Yes, very, very, very good question, very important question. At the moment, we see that what we have explained to you what is really off-chain is a calculation of the product carbon footprint. So how do you go from scope one and two emissions of a whole company into the product carbon footprint of certain products? And here we have to ensure that companies are not cheating and all big companies for scope one and two emissions are already having auditors in place to verify their scope one and scope two emissions. And we would just extend this verification to the calculation of the product carbon footprint. So these are independent auditors who say, okay, the calculations of company X are in line with the guidelines and the sum of all products are really getting into the scope one and scope two emissions. So there is no leakage. And this is what the auditors are doing. In my opinion, this works very well for all the larger companies where I see a challenge is the smaller companies. I don't think there are even enough auditors to do all the calculations, especially in a short term. And they're our idea, not the one of the World Business Council group yet, but creating some incentives for, and we could do this. We broke up a couple of times there, at least in my screen. Looks like it happened for others also. Maybe if you could go back to your idea that you have that isn't the World Business Council. Okay. Yeah. What I have thought for the smaller companies who really don't have the financial means and it's too expensive. What I would like to do is to create an incentive, like working with models from the game theory for them to reward them if they're honest. You could, for example, do audits based on a, that's too fast, can see what it's too far. On a random principle. And then if the auditor confirms the results, they would get positive rating. And if they say it has been wrong, they would get a negative, for example, one of them. And could also say if it was wrong, they have to do for three years, nearly audits to ensure that they're becoming honest. We need to reward them for honest behavior and punish them for dishonest behavior. And then we would have a mechanism where we could avoid the audit costs and still ensure with a very high probabilities that companies are being honest. Does that make sense to you? So I think the short, that helps. So I think what you're saying is bigger companies, yeah, in general we can trust them. Dieselgate, we will leave that off on the side, right? No, no, we're not saying, no, no, we were saying the bigger companies will have to use auditors. They'll have some big auditors there. And then smaller companies you're thinking, hey, let's do some sort of tokenization or some way that we're gonna come in here. Are you thinking about sensor-based at all, getting down to that level? Yeah, but some sort of IOT and you're down there. I mean, that sounds kind of far off. It sounds like let's just start simple and let's build upon that. I think for the calculation of the product, carbon footprint, IOT is certainly very important. For example, if you can have the real-time energy consumption of certain equipment that certainly helps to calculate the specific product, carbon footprint. And in that sense, I think IOT will help companies to get to more accurate results quickly. And it will also reduce the manual labor significantly if they have automated values and do not have to read them from any whatever. So IOT is important in our opinion. It's not mandatory, but it will make life easier and it will be more accurate with IOT. I'm absolutely convinced. Beautiful, okay, thank you. You answered my question. Thank you. Next time for your question, Joannes. I think you also have a question. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you for presenting Circular Tree and it was a very interesting presentation. My question is more with regards to what, so you established basically the baseline for accounting for supply chain, let's say CO2 emissions and you provide the first step in saying, okay, this is how much CO2 you spend for a certain product or a certain, let's say, yeah, product or life cycle. And my question is more with regards what you can do afterwards in terms of tokenizing these, maybe I've missed it in the presentation, but if you have some form of tokenization strategy, what kind of tokens do you talk about? Do you also talk about perhaps the value of CO2 in terms of how to perhaps tokenize the value of the CO2, which is corresponding to a certain product and then what that could mean for the product if it becomes more green, does it have a higher value and how does it even go also with ESG reporting in general, which you also mentioned upon if you can elaborate these two or three questions. Thank you. Thank you for your question. Very good question, very good question. To be honest, we have not discussed this in depth just because we have so many other problems we need to solve first, but one of the ideas I'm having is that you could use, you could sort of run a tokenized auction. You could say the supplier who is able to reduce a carbon footprint by X% for the lowest cost can sort of win this. So you would use this as a tokenization to run an auction to find the least expensive way in order to reduce the carbon footprint of your supply chain. I'm certainly having that in the back of my mind I think it's great that you came up with a similar idea but to be honest, I mean, we are right now at the beginning and first of all, we need to get a critical mass of suppliers on the system before we can go to this next step but certainly it's in the sort of strategy step or pile and I think this is certainly a great opportunity but on the other side, we need to focus on establishing the system first before we can go to these next steps but very good question. Okay, perhaps just as a follow-up, sorry if I have made Robin it's interesting that you mentioned that but perhaps if you tokenize it and that's also where I'm doing my research in because I'm doing my PhD in blockchain and supply chains and one aspect of my research is not only what you do with the tokenization but actually also with the impact investment model because when you tokenize data and you standardize the data you actually can make it an investment case and that could be another reason why companies should join your platform in order to provide their information because in the long run, if you tokenize that data you could actually also say if you are let's say 30% less in carbon emissions then we can give you a better rate if you want to finance your business. So this could be something also very interesting in terms of the reason why someone should join your platform. Absolutely, I mean, we definitely maybe should talk have a separate talk on further discussing this. I think there are many opportunities. One of the things for example, we're having also on the back of my mind right now we're focusing on carbon footprint only to really because we think this is the most important thing but that does not mean that there are not many other important things. For example, water consumption, what was the water consumption? So from a long-term strategy, we could move from the carbon footprint to a product environmental footprint where we take a basket of different KPIs but we have purposely decided on really going small and trying to establish a wide customer base first before we will expand into other KPIs. Okay, great. Yeah, I'm happy. I think I was already connected to you on LinkedIn. So if you want to take this further then maybe I will reach out to you on LinkedIn and then perhaps schedule a call or something. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Ernest, so Gunther or Catherine, Elias, maybe you will take the chance to drop a message to the chat where people can reach out to you if they want to follow up any of the discussions. Okay. Yeah, Kamlesh, so you also have your hand raised. Do you want to ask the question? Yeah, okay. So actually the question which I have actually already joined us and actually I had two questions. One about like supply chain companies and the auditor is part of this platform, right? And another is the tokenization. I think tokenization is a very important part to kind of really, really give some kind of benefit to the consumer and even kind of, really some kind of revenue and business model out of the product. I think that is already covered by the join us and but anyway, if you want to add something then you can add. I'm sorry, I'm not sure whether I've understood your question. So actually, so I had a question regarding like in the blockchain platform like there is a kind of, you have auditors also in the part of the network in the blockchain network or just the supply chain companies only? Yeah, thank you. At this point in time, they're not in the blockchain network but eventually we will put them in there. What is clear, maybe I should really mention this. We have done a pilot project, what I've presented to you in the World Business Council. We have done another pilot project from the fast moving consumer goods industry. And now we're really, that we know that the system in principle works. Now we are working on architecture to make this, to achieve a communication which is platform independent. So other solution providers can exchange data. This is a status where we are right now and we have a timeline where we want to show something to be used at the next climate conference in Glasgow in November. Okay, and another question regarding the tokenization. The tokenization also part of the roadmap or not? It's not part of the roadmap yet, I think. But once we are working in the architecture team, it will certainly get on there. Okay, yeah, thank you. Yep. Yes, commercial counter. I think the next one is Alex Howard. Do you want to ask a question, Alex? Yes, thank you. I was just wondering, they are obviously in this, while you mentioned that you have done the two pilot projects so far. But obviously, when you take this thing to scale and you take it, for example, if Porsche were to calculate not only the carbon footprint for the bumpers, but for the entire vehicle, there will obviously be some factors or processes or products in the end product for which you cannot measure the carbon footprint empirically. What emission factors do you plan to use for those products and processes? Like for example, I know that IPCC has this database of economic activities and then have emission factors for virtually all those economic activities and products, but are you planning to use those or another sources? I think, thank you for the question, very important question. We didn't cover that in your presentation. So what we are foreseeing is it certainly takes some time to get the data complete from a supply chain. Just if you look at a car which consists out of whatever, 30,000 different parts and there will be some suppliers will be very quick, some others will take longer. And in order to still achieve a product carbon footprint, we have decided that we will also allow secondary data from databases, for example, Gabi eco-invent, et cetera, plastic zeros, for example, but this data has to be specifically marked. So we say everything which is truly measured is primary data and everything else is secondary data. And in the beginning, you will also have the KPI of increasing the amount, the percentage of primary data. But we don't want to wait until every supplier has provided information because that would take far too long. So I think realistically, if you come up to a value of maybe 70 to 80%, that would be awesome already. And then you would have a very good base to start from. Does that answer your question? Yes, yes, it does. I just have one more question which is somewhat related to it. So you mentioned, for example, in the pilot you started with BASF and then it was Madison and then it was Port. Now, say there was another company similar to BASF from one of their competitors, they can use one method to calculate the carbon footprint and BASF can use another method to calculate the carbon footprint. And the results, it's exactly the same process, but the results may differ because they are using different calculation techniques or methods. Do you prescribe or prefer that the participants in your network use specific calculation methods or techniques or if not, is there a way that you can communicate to the users of your blockchain system what the quality of each carbon footprint calculation is in terms of exactly how specific they were when they were calculating those carbon footprints that they reported. Yeah, very good question. It's the first one, we want to, and this is one of the working groups of the World Business Council project. We want to develop clear guidelines so that the calculation methodology is the same between let's say BASF on one of their competitors. And there we are working with so-called product category rules which clearly define how you need to accumulate for the carbon footprint in order to make it comparable. We believe it would not work if you say, okay, is this calculation methodology just better or worse, how do you want to judge this? I mean, it's just a different distribution of carbon footprint. So we clearly will give more precise guidelines on how to measure in order to make it comparable. Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, my pleasure. Okay, so we have eight minutes left and I've seen three more questions. Alex, do you want to go next and ask a question? Thank you, Robin. I hope y'all can hear me. Yes, we can hear you. Yes, thanks. So maybe just going down the line of the questioning around getting the supplier data, are you looking to make use of these hybrid smart contracts in order to supply live information about whether those suppliers are actually active or is that maybe a separate system that could be built on top of yours? What do you mean by active? Whether those suppliers actually have resources, say they have a great, their carbon footprint is minimal in comparison with competition, but then a bunch of orders come in for whatever they're making. Sorry, I think we lost your connection. I think so, I'm still there. Maybe I can type it. Yeah, we cannot hear anymore. If you can just drop your questions through the chat and we will just read it out loud. And Mark, do you want to go next with your question? Yeah, thanks. I'll just make mine real quick. It was just building on what Alex said. I was just thinking around what your data strategy is and it did spark the thought around your game theory model for giving at least estimated carbon amounts for those that are might not, because once you start seeing enough data, you might be able to then give an accurate estimate as to what that particular part of the supply chain might be contributing and the burden would then fall on them to rebut with any other evidence might be a possibility as you'll be ultimately gaining that insight from the data you'll be receiving through the system. So I just wanted to kind of touch on that and question what you're thinking as a sort of a holistic data strategy. Thank you. I'm not sure whether I've understood the question. So I mean, what is clear is if the company is not providing data, then we will use database values. So this is a first clear rule and this database value will then be marked as secondary data. And in terms of the audit, this is something, this is my personal thought, we're not there yet in the World Business Council project because in that project, apart from us, the other companies are also multinationals with billion dollar revenues. And they have little understanding about how small companies work. And I don't think they've given for every supplier to hire an auditor. And there, this is something I will bring into the working group saying, there we need to develop a mechanism which incentivize companies to be honest without necessarily having to audit every product or factory in order to make it worthwhile. Those are the two things. And if there's still something unclear, you need to explain to me because then I've not understood the question. Yeah, no, no, thank you. That was quite clear. It was more just thinking around how you will be getting so much data from those companies. So after you would, receiving that data, you could then start seeing trends as to what good estimates would be. It also might support your, at least reasonableness threshold when they're making bids with data, especially if they're not gonna be audited, just sort of having a sort of a data science strategy. This is about, okay, now I understand. This is a very interesting question. And actually in CRE we could, but in practical companies are very, very restrictive and sensitive with their data. So on our experience, companies to widely share their data. And this is what one of the promises we are making to the companies is that they maintain ownership of their data. So even technically, theoretically we could do it. We will establish mechanisms that we cannot do it in order to provide trust to the companies that they maintain ownership of their data. This is very important and very critical for companies to really take part in such a system. So from a principle thought, you're absolutely right, but this conflicts with the restrictions companies are putting on their data and we believe it's more important for them to work with the system rather than having this 100% transparency, which of course would be much better. But if we do not promise them confidentiality and ownership of their data, they will not take part in such a system. This might also address the question by Alex. So something like life production rates would certainly not be shared by the companies. I mean, for one, because they want to maintain the competitive advantage, but this could even be for antitrust reasons because you cannot let your competitors know how much you produce. That's actually illegal. Okay, so we have one last question from Sheetan. And if there are more questions, I just recommend you to either reach out to your circuitry directly or use the mailing list if you want to also share your question with the crew. Sheetan, please. Thanks a lot, Robin. I hope I am audible to all. So first of all, I'd like to thank the team circuitry for this wonderful presentation. So I have two questions. So the first question is regarding, can these auditor also be audited? So is there a way or how we are planning this or the second question is, can we use these DID variable credentials instead of having these audits in form of hash and we are keeping the signature? So this indeed is already doing this. So we have variable credentials. So these auditors can have variable credentials and can directly issue those to the companies. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. The first question is, no, we don't have a mechanism yet to audit the auditors. Maybe this might be an idea for the future, but at this point in time, I don't think in this area, this is common. I mean, this is just like you have KPMG or Price Waterhouse or whatever. There is a last instance and I think it's a similar system with auditors for carbon footprint information. So I don't think it's foreseen as a solution to have those. I mean, it's certainly interested and I'm not really knowledgeable on what it takes to become an auditor. This is something I might need to look into with one of our LCA experts, but I'm maybe a little bit naive, but I think generally those auditors are accepted under certain regulation as far as I know in order to become an auditor. I know it, for example, in Germany, if you are so-called Wirtschaftsprüfer, you have to take certain tests and commit to work by certain standards. So, but I'm to be honest, not an expert on the procedures, how it works with carbon footprint. The other part, I have not really understood what you mean by the caches of the signatures. Yes, if you've understood it, you can answer it, but otherwise- I think it was about DITs and verifiable credentials. Yes, yes, it's the same thing. I'm talking about the verifiable credentials. Definitely, we're on a technical level, we're thinking about using that because for auditing, what we need is trusted identity in the system. So I can identify the auditors and they can sign documents and we can match those inextricably. And we're definitely looking at the DITs and VCs. Yes, because in this way, we can define the schema of various credentials. Let's say they are three auditors. So we discussed earlier as well. They are going with different mechanisms. So we need not to limit them to our stricter mechanism. They can have any mechanism by following some schema. They can define their own rules. They can issue their credentials. So this is how I'm thinking about it. Is it feasible in this use case or not? I think so, yeah. I think you need to kind of strike the balance between customization and standardization. So it's still, you can still automate it, but yeah, that's an interesting direction. Yeah, thanks a lot. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we have passed the hour. Thanks everyone for attending the meeting and this great discussion. Special thanks to Gunter, Katrin and Iris. Thank you so much for your presentation and this kind of bulletproof Q&A. Like 100s of questions, thanks a lot. And hope to talk soon and see you in one of our future meetings, call us or in the main list. Thank you very much for the interest. It was great talking to you and we'll certainly stay in contact. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. Okay, thank you. Bye-bye. Thank you.