Happy Day 3 of DevCon 6. Before we get started today, I just want to send a huge shout out to all the organizers, all the people that came from all over the world, and everyone who is at this talk today. So I appreciate it. So today, I'm Colin Myers. I'm co-founder of Oble Labs with Oshin. And today, we are going to discuss designing DVT for non-correlation. So before we get started, who is Oble Labs? Best way to think of us is that we're an R&D team. We're focused on building a different Ethereum infrastructure technologies for staking. Today, the core team consists of 16 members across eight countries, so we're quite distributed. Right now, our main focus is delivering distributed validator technology for Ethereum as a primary network to begin with. So before we dive a little bit deeper in today, let's kind of talk about just Ethereum as a whole and kind of the roadmap of scalability. So a lot of it, we just had the merge. And if anyone went to the opening ceremonies, there's this ossification discussion happening, which is essentially like hardening the things that we've put together, the things that we've created. And what we see here are the three main areas that we've been focusing on over the past few years to scale Ethereum into its next chapter. So on the left here, the first area is the execution layer. This is the most mature of all the different scalability technologies and research studies that have been done over the years. Cryptographic primitives that are used for this problem are optimistic and ZK rollups. This comes through in the form of layer two. It's actually been quite interesting this week to see that layer two is taking over as they should and layer two, honestly in my eyes, seems to be the future of what Ethereum will build out of from a research perspective. The second area ties to layer two and as it matures more, we are getting in front of the next problem, which is the data layer. So the data layer must also scale while execution scales. Common methodologies used for this is called data availability sampling and here are some examples of some few projects that are focusing on that. The third piece, which is kind of the most immature and not only like research and adoption and implementation is scaling the consensus layer. Like scaling consensus to date has basically been getting to Genesis and then getting to the merge. And now that we're in this post-merge world, we're all kind of reevaluating the consensus layer and saying how do we scale it more. Today what we're using is DVT as a cryptographic primitive and protocol to help scale the consensus layer. Now I'm going to take a moment to describe what distributed validator technology is in a bit more words. So at its most simple, a distributed validator is an Ethereum validator that runs across multiple machines. Why you might want to do this is it protects you from a lot of technical and social risks from validation. One of the first ones is software issues. If you're running just one node and just one software client, software generally doesn't run forever without issue. Similarly, running a distributed validator makes you more protected from hardware risks as everyone kind of expects, servers don't last forever and they die regularly enough. Going one bit further, if you take a distributed validator and you run it with other people, so each person only has a subset of the private key. That makes private key much more difficult, private key compromise much more difficult because you have to compromise three or more different operators to get the full private key to slash or do whatever with it. And the last one is a bit more abstract, but it's the idea of if your validator goes haywire, they become a bad actor, they've been hacked, remote code execution, whatever you'd like. Generally you have no safeguard if you just have all of your money with one validator, it's just you're in trouble. But if you have your money in a distributed validator, you have protection so long as only a subset of validators become Byzantine or go haywire or whatever you want to call it. Another thing that's super important is to talk about who benefits from DVT. The great thing about it is we think more or less everyone involved in validation can benefit from it. The liquid staking providers themselves, they at the moment are trusting huge amounts of stake and to single operators and they're just kind of crossing their fingers and praying that nothing bad happens. They would much prefer to be able to divide their stake across operator and then if anything bad happens to one, there's no risk or no loss to the liquid staking protocol. Similarly, the centralized providers can gain a lot from using distributed validator technology. I had the pleasure of building BlockDemon's ETH2 staking platform at Genesis and I know that you could reduce DevOps risk of you have to wake them up in the middle of the night when a machine dies if you have a distributed validator. Similarly, you can reduce your hardware cost because most people put a very small amount of validators per any given machine because if it goes offline there's nothing you can do but if you have a fall tolerant validator you can start to safely increase the amount of keys per node and that can reduce your operating costs and then on the more extreme or like the further out their side of things a lot of centralized operators either ensure their stake against slashing either on balance sheet or they go to a third party provider for insurance. This is currently extremely expensive and not even every provider offers it because the thing to ensure in a slashing is potentially you have to pay back everyone like all of that stake. So if you have an operator with hundreds of millions of dollars and ensure it has to potentially pay all of that stake you're gonna have a really high premium but if you were instead running a distributed validator and insurers says okay what's gonna happen if they get compromised? The worst case scenario is much lower and as a result the premium is hopefully gonna be much lower. The next thing I'm gonna do is wanna have Colin talk a bit about the market for distributed validators. Cool so how is stake accumulating? These were taken from Elias from Rated his liquid staking dashboard on Dune. Data in this area for those of you watching and who were looking at data this is probably some of the best data on the status of pools and how they've accumulated over time and I would highly recommend it. So where are we at today? This chart here starts on the left at Genesis which was December 2020 and it shows the dramatic increase in pooled assets as a percentage of total staked assets over time. So as we can see it's kind of quite frankly like exponentially growing. Today numbers where are we? There's about six million ETH locked in pools that equates to around $8 billion today and it represents nearly 37% of stake in the network. So the 37% of stake in the network is like probably the most important thing I wanna touch on as it ties to like what our thesis is which ties to how we believe DVT should be designed. We believe that over the next 12 to 18 months that pooling will become dominant inside of most networks especially Ethereum and we suspect that more than two thirds of stake in the near future will be inside of pools. DVT is today on the focal roadmap of pools to help decentralize and to help build themselves out. Therefore we believe that DVT saturation inside of these pools will also end up being 75% plus. Lastly, this is important because DVT is ultimately a security protocol. It comes in a middleware, however it's based upon security. So different than MEV Boost, right? You use MEV Boost to get more. With DVT you use it to protect the largest reward which is consensus rewards. We believe that DVT adoption will be kind of a winner-take-all market due to its security premises and the purpose of what it's used for. So to kind of set the tone before we go into correlation here, I just wanted to give a size of the market our expectations of how DVT will sit inside of pools and then how large pools will be as a percentage of total stake. Therefore if this thesis does play out, it's incredibly important that DVT stays helpful at scale instead of becoming more correlated and unhelpful. So now we'll spend a little bit of time on slashing, what it is and what it isn't. So, slashing. The best way to think of slashing for those of you as if it's a new concept is slashing is like the defense mechanism or the immune system of proof-of-stake networks. And what it's here to do, it's here to punish you for not following the rules in an attempt to keep the network credible and to follow the rules of the protocol. Today there's two primary ways to get slashed. The first one is a double sign. Back in proof-of-work this was called a double spend and this has been mostly predominantly what the top slashing event and the network to date has been through and we'll get into like how that's happened. The second one is a bit more abstract. Best way to think of it is walking back a slot height that you previously said was finalized. Now a more layman's term way of describing this is in the future you try to change something that you said was true in the past. So therefore you're trying to like change state inside of the network and if you do that you will be slashed for it. Inside of slashing there are different levels in degrees of slashing. There's correlated slashing and uncorrelated slashing. Uncorrelated slashing today is predominantly that the most of what's taken place in the network we've been fortunate enough on Mainnet to not see a large correlated event aside from maybe a couple small incidents and in an uncorrelated sense you can expect to lose up to a minimum of one ETH based on the state of what's happening in the network. When it comes to correlated slashing I won't spend a whole lot of time digging into it but what everyone needs to know is that in the event of like a network wide event correlated slashing can result in a validator losing all of their ether up to 32 which is much more of a catastrophic event. So as we begin to like look at the future of slashing there's certain technologies best practices that have kind of gotten over this uncorrelated slashing we'll definitely see a few in the network it's okay but now what we need to begin to prepare for is as like stake scales and there's more products and more infrastructure providers how do we prevent correlated slashing because it's like what could take the whole network down or take all a validator stake. Okay so what is an activity penalty? This is super important because it's not slashing. Many people who are coming into the space now try to say that inactivity is a slasher of a defense by definition it's not and the way that we should think about inactivity is if your machine goes offline it's okay you can take the time to bring it back up online and you can expect to lose what you would have made so there is a penalty associated with it but it's not a slashing and it's not because you broke the rules it's just due to downtime. Inactivity can also be more severe in scale so if a large portion of the network is inactive a big driving force in the E2 economics and design is this average percent uptime in the network so if that drops below 66 the inactivity penalty across the whole network will grow and grow and grow in an attempt to push ether out to rebalance it to get back to 66 percent so when it comes inactivity large inactivity events will result in sizable offenses for people still don't want to call them slashings but you can think of this mechanism as a way to rebalance the system to promote 66 percent of machines to turn their machines back on. Now we've discussed a bit what is distributed validator technology what it's useful for and then we had a bit of a refresher on slashing and inactivity now we'd like to discuss how we at Oble have made certain design decisions to minimize the correlation risk because as we said the title of this slide or this talk is how not to make things worse when we're trying to make them better so the first thing I wanted to talk about is the private keys because in a validator the private keys are more or less everything we've taken the decision to not allow any one entity to have the full private key that's not the customer that's not any one operator instead all the operators come together and they do a distributed key generation which means they all take part in a bit of a protocol and they contribute some entropy to it and at the end they all get their private keys and they get a proof that everyone took part and followed the rules fairly but there was never any moment where one person had the full private key for the validator this is super important because if somebody does they can run it in a validator and get you slashed we don't put these private keys more or less anywhere they're created on the machine where the validator will run we don't encrypt them and put them on chain or leave them anywhere where people could attack and compromise a large number of them to follow through with that once we've helped create these validator private keys we don't actually keep control over them Caron, which is the name of the software Oval has written is a non-custodial middleware which is a fancy way of saying it doesn't have the private keys it just asks the validator to sign something for it it sits in between the it sits in between the beacon client and the beacon API and the validator client and it intercepts the traffic going between them your Caron clients all they really do is they play a consensus game and they say, what are we going to ask the validators to sign and once they come to consensus on that they present that to each validator every validator says, okay, let me check my slashing rules have I already signed something at this height? No, okay, that's good have I said finality was further than what I'm being asked to say? No, okay, sweet I'm not going to get slashed I'll sign this message and I'll send it back to what I think is the beacon note we're actually sitting as a middleware there we intercept that signature we gossip them to the other different nodes in the cluster and once any of them have enough of the partial signatures they can reconstruct the aggregate signature and send it on to the network and the rest of the network says, yep that's just a normal validator, it looks good to me what's nice about this middleware and not having the private keys is if we are compromised, the worst we can do is show something slashable to a validator client but we get to rely on the fact that the validator clients are independent and have their own code probably don't have the same bugs and are not going to sign anything slashable most likely however, if you only hit just one validator client there is a scenario where you find a zero day in that and you can convince them to sign something slashable so one of the things we've been very focused on is being multi-client and what that means is you can run any of the validators that implement the spec specifically we're still working on support for all of them but you can use Lighthouse and Techoo already and generally speaking, in an enterprise operator like distributed validator you want to have a mix of all the different ELs all the different CLs all the different validator clients because if there is a bug in a client you don't want it to have a majority of your distributed validator because then it will sign and you might get slashed and the only data point we have for a client bug like this was when Prism had a timing bug back in the Medasha testnet and that was the most severe slashings across any testnet or mainnet today yeah, so the next thing I wanted to talk about is the networking side of things so over the last three design decisions we talked about we said, how are we going to set up the private keys how do we keep them maximally safe, step one then step two is how do we keep our software out of the driver's seat we don't want to have total control over these private keys because if we can sign arbitrary data that's a threat you don't want something running more than 33% of the network if they can sign whatever without any oversight the third piece is obviously our multi-client implementation trying not to have exposure to any one piece of implementation makes you more like resilient to bugs and makes you less correlated and then the last one is more on the inactivity side so the three before have been all about preventing slashing, preventing slashing, preventing slashing but we also try and prevent downtime of course if you're running a highly available validator the pitch is that you're going to be up more often than if you're on a solo note and similarly if we had a distributed validator architecture where something goes wrong and we knocked off every distributed validator all at once the inactivity penalties would be rather severe and we would make things worse when we were trying to make them better so how we have architected Karen's networking stack is they're totally independent from one another one group of people running a distributed validator over here has no common infrastructure with someone running it over in a separate place we think this is super important because it allows you to have non-correlation effectively if the alternative to this was if you kind of bound all of these together and to a shared like networking layer like message bus or gossip network the problem with that is well for a start it's usually slower you have to go multiple hops around the internet and with a distributed validator time is money so you don't want to be doing that but also if anything happens to this network you knock off all distributed validators simultaneously and that's something that we don't want to do so if you have a scenario where every distributed validator has their own independent network networking if anything does go wrong they go wrong separately and the nice piece about this is going through this like effort of making everyone set up new networking is definitely a bit more hassle but the benefit of having independent clusters is you can also have independent versioning and what I mean by that is one of the scariest things in software development is releasing an update because you're not really sure it's going to work and it's particularly scary if you're securing billions of dollars so the last thing we want to do is introduce a correlated outage by pushing a new version it is pragmatic to assume that you'll push a broken version at some point we saw guests do it last month and they're probably the most experienced team in the space so it can more or less happen to anyone you shouldn't assume you're just not going to do it so instead you're like okay if we did push a bad version like how can we minimize the issues and this is where having independent networking comes in if you have one cluster that's totally separate to another one you can update that one to version two and see what happens and if that's all healthy great you can update a second and a third and a fourth and you can gradually roll out this update across the network and if anything goes wrong you can kind of abort and you can kind of panic if you go the other way of we have shared messaging and you know everyone has to talk the same protocol you have to do what the kind of ELs and CLs do which is you pick a slot number and you release a new version and you're like add everyone on Discord you pray to God that they have running the new version in time because if they're not running the new version they go offline and you also pray that the version is right because if there's nothing wrong with it you knock everybody else off as well so yeah the inactivity side of things the penalties aren't as severe but it is also super important to us when designing distributed validators not to make things worse when we're trying to make them better and I'm going to hand it back to Colin for the last few closing thoughts cool yeah so to close it down again appreciate everyone coming out DVT is this I guess well we've been working on it quite a long time but since ETH Denver at the beginning of this year it's really now we've begun to have its turn essentially of adoption our North Star is a project today what we're most focused on is convincing everyone that validators are communities not individuals today the way that the network topography sits is validators are a single key validators are a single person or validators are a single entity and with this technology we can migrate that paradigm into validators being run predominantly by communities so we have about five minutes left again since DVT's kind of been this new topic that's been introduced over the past few months we want to make sure we take time to answer anyone's questions and again thanks everyone for coming out pushing and incentivizing people to have diversity in where the machines are is actually the real problem there right there's a variety of validators large ones that they choose to run on-prem there's a variety that they choose to run in the cloud we were at dinner last night and the menu was running on US, Amazon, East too and we just laughed because like everyone's running on US, Amazon, East too so there are like other types of correlated problems with internet usage that we necessarily can't fight but still susceptible to them I was wondering about the DKG itself about the ceremony and how do you think about the risk that there is some problem some data centers or something and somehow like at one point two out of four keys get lost like how probable do you think this is and what do you think about possible mitigations to this problem yeah this is a very good question and this is usually referred to as like verifiable secret sharing in like academia and this is the thing of doing a DKG is one thing but how do you know it actually worked how do you know that you know everyone actually contributed everyone got a piece like they expected and usually there are two types of ways to prove a DKG is fair they're called verifiable secret sharing and publicly verifiable secret sharing but ultimately speaking at the end of a DKG everyone that's taking part they get a private key and they get a proof in a verifiable secret share you need to have one of the private keys to check the proof in a publicly verifiable secret share it's like a zero knowledge proof anyone can just check that it's verified so yes it is actually super important to make sure that everyone took part and usually there's like challenge rounds built into DKG which says you know does everything look right does anyone hit the abort or is everyone going to like sign off on this and yeah at the end of a DKG normally there's a proof I think right now we have a VSS proof meaning only the peers know what was legit but ultimately we would like to add a zero knowledge proof so even like you know the is yet Lido can say yeah those four operators definitely did the DKG correctly because they wouldn't have been able to produce a DK proof otherwise for sure so the question because he's not miked up was you know what happens if people lose you know more than a subset of keys and honestly the answer is if you lose you know more than the threshold you're probably gonna you're probably out of luck to be perfectly honest so generally speaking that's why you want four different operators and they should all make you know independent backups if you have two operators that didn't make backups and left them in the same data center and everything blew up yeah that's probably a big problem to be perfectly honest and yeah that would be one of the ways where forced exits would be nice because then the person that the withdrawal of key could be like oh please send it back to me but what would realistically happen is right now you'd be offline and you'd be offline until you hit 16 ether and get kicked out so yes if people don't back up their private keys you know even in a distributed validator if you lose you know too many of the private keys you're still screwed


So I'll go, here it goes, I started the recording, I'll go through the policy written on the policy. 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 a specific person that needs to give to meeting agendas and be aware of and not participate in any activities that are prohibited under applicable U.S. state federal or foreign antitrust and competition laws. Example of types of actions that are prohibited at Linux Foundation meetings and in connection with Linux Foundation activities are described in the 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 Andrea of the growth of the firm of Gasmir of growth, which provides legal counsel to the Linux Foundation. Hyperledger is committed to creating a safer and welcoming community for all. So welcome everybody to this meeting. We're going to have Saqib was saying I'm coming here on proof of trust.  They have bars in terms of great funds going to be very interesting. We had a preview a few days ago. So welcome, gents. I'll leave the filter you for the presentation. Thank you Andrea. And good morning, good afternoon and good evening depending on which part of the world you're joining us from today. I'm Saqib Waseem and I'm the chief innovation officer at the proof of trust. I'm also joined by my counterpart from IBM, Mr Kevin Gill Kevin. Hi, I'm Kevin Gill I'm the CTO and distinguished engineer for blockchain services in the UK and Europe. And I've been working with Saqib and that the CEO and team of proof of trust Dean Armstrong is that the CEO who is a QC and head of chambers in London as and has been very influential alongside Saqib in this dispute resolution solution which is equally at home with both legal services and any SME input to dispute delegate review but we'll see that as we go through the presentation and see some of the screens and what's been produced so far. So keep back to you. Thanks very much so if you guys don't mind, I'm going to pop some slides on the screen just so we can start the conversation. Well we can talk through what proof of trust is how it came about what markets were working towards and why we feel this is beneficial to the legal services market but more broadly speaking, governmental transactions and commercial transactions at scale with me. Can everyone see the slides on the screen now. Yes. Okay. Excellent. So, I guess I should start by giving you guys a very high level overview what proof of trust is where it came from and effectively how it operates so proof of trust is a UK limited company operating globally. Founders are entrepreneurs from various different markets with a keen eye on patenting technology across broad different environments and industries. And as we saw the rise of blockchain in 2015 to 2017. We've seen that the growth of smart contracts and accounted for the fact that there was no patented methodology for dispute resolution across any in all blockchain. So what proof of trust is secured today is global patents for the method means an apparatus for dispute resolution across any in all blockchains using a really innovative method for distributed consensus to manage that process. One of the key thoughts is, is we use technology enablement and blockchain to drive better, fairer cheaper faster decision making processes around legal disputes, or data resolution and governmental transactions as we'll get into into a little bit. So as we start in our journey, really understanding, we know why this is so important what services we can provide. We started building our idea of this interconnected universe, if you will, of different industries and participants within blockchain consortia and how legal services really underpin the longevity of faster, more efficient transactions. We've seen how business enablement and technology has improved trade and facilitated many different industries to work more efficiently. And our diagram on the right hand side here kind of illustrates how proof of trust is a focal point into ensuring that these transactions can run smoothly in a large network of facts, almost like a network of network of your Kevin will agree. And the analogy that we like to use is proof of trust is almost like the sun in the universe.  And then on each planet you have satellites, and those satellites would be the participants within those business networks. And through this network effect, we can use proof of trust internal mechanism platform to interconnect these industries with legal business and advisory services for fast review, executing transactions with trust. And we use blockchain as an underlying layer and we use hyper ledger fabric to do this, but to prove the trusted transaction so we record the evidence of that transaction throughout the entire journey at proof of trust. And as Kevin mentioned we've been working really closely with IBM since the middle of last year to develop and provide the solution. We've created three products in our journey together with IBM, nebula cosmos and nimbus at a very high level, nebula is a governmental focused application or platform. And it's focused on inter and intra governmental transactions, effectively using the same distributed consensus model to interconnect different governmental departments, so that for complex approval processes were able to effectively create agile and stream processes, which otherwise would be paper based and waterfall style transactions. Our second product cosmos is more commercially focused. It's aimed at large businesses or high level or high value transactions where legal services are really required. So if we consider a dispute with a large organization we take an insurer as an example insurers are encumbered by significant liabilities every year by slow and incumbent legal processes and ADR processes that exist today in a more carbon or analog world by digitizing it, we can alleviate some of the pains that I felt today by slow times to resolution, heavy costs for standing up lawyers over fixed periods of times. And we can alleviate huge liabilities on balance sheets by providing a faster fair adjudication process around that. And Nimbus is our social good application, and this is designed specifically to reduce fraud and corruption around COVID specific issues or pandemic type issues. For example, HMRC in the UK for example, we're seeing between 35 to 48 billion pounds worth of issues or potential fraud in the UK related specifically to COVID. What proof of trust can do is provide governmental departments with scale and trusted adjudication of those transactions where otherwise it would take them years to resolve proof of trust feels that it can resolve those in a matter of months. So what proof of trust really works as an ecosystem, how does the product actually land itself with these clients. Well, we like to segment our offering into three areas. We have the buy side either client side, we have the sell side which is the supply side, which is what proof of trust is focused on providing, and then we have additional benefits, which I will relate back to our original diagram of the universe. But from the client's perspective proof of trust can effectively interact with any kind of application. We are API centric so we can connect to legacy applications or any type of blockchain. We aren't afraid of the fact that we are definitely high pleasure. We like to work in an agnostic sense and not limit ourselves to what opportunities we have with any different type of clients environment. So this integration that can be front end integration, or it could be back end integration with any of those clients that we have. And what does proof of trust do. Well, we provide the legal expertise, the matchmaking the adjudication system around that, and all the mechanisms for producing a verdict against an issue. And what do we produce at the end of this. Well, we record all of these transactions capture metadata anonymized information about it to provide market insights that are applicable to the client. So we're able to digitize the entire process and provide a 360 degree view of all of the events surrounding a dispute. We're also able to offer market wide insights if we have multiple participants as we show earlier in the cosmos diagram so if we take to finance or finances and industry there are multiple participants in that each of them struggling with their own disputes and issues proof of trust can digitize and analyze all the analytics around that and provide holistic view and anonymized sense of where everybody ranks with their disputes. How does it actually work. I think that's the key question that everybody asks us what does the process look like. As you mentioned proof of trust allows an organization or an entity to integrate into the proof of trust service where they can trigger dispute or an issue, either part way through the transaction if they felt that the terms have been breached. Either post transaction if off chain information comes into play that would instigate or indicate an issue otherwise within that process. As soon as we accept a case. I mean we call this that the big red button. So if we have two parties that dispute they can instigate proof of trust. We give both participants the opportunity to categorize the type of issue that they're faced with or multiple issues that they're faced with based on the contract set in place between the two of them. We allow them to capture evidence and provide rationale and really give us their story and tell us what the issue is just like you would do if you're presenting to court. So let's capture both sides of the story to that effect proof of trust digitizes all of this standardizes the information and records this anonymously to a blockchain so that we're immediately recording this with trust. We then use a much making algorithm and the proof of trust within the proof of trust application to look at all the information that's been presented by both parties and effectively provide them with a panel of adjudicators. From our system, so proof of trust is developed and establishing a marketplace of vetted and verified legal and business specialists from around the world. So covering multiple different specialties or industries, and also ensuring that we have global coverage for multiple different jurisdictions. So proof of trust is an entirely customizable approach to dispute resolution so in the diagram you can see forth that we have five delegates in our system. Those would be the appointed adjudicators for a dispute, we can customize various attributes about the transaction itself so we can scale the number of delegates down to three or anything above, as long as it's an odd number of delegates in consensus, and we can also set different kinds of thresholds against acceptance criteria. So it may be that we want 100% consensus for very high value transactions, or it could be that in the case of five delegates that the organizations instigating agree that four out of three delegates agreeing is sufficient. If we don't reach consensus or agreed consensus between the delegates in the first instance, we then pass that to a secondary panel, reducing the error of risk. And I'm certainly not the mathematician in our organization but our head of research and development and nuclear physicist Dr Sam Kelly has crunched the numbers on this and we actually find that we're able to reduce the risk of error down to one in 500 million, based on our patented algorithmic approach. Once we've got an output from each of the delegates in the system, our algorithm combines that and produces a binary outcome, we're then able to effectively deliver that decision back to both parties in a binding agreement, and we can record the outcome to blockchain. And as mentioned earlier, we capture all of the analytics around that process. Kevin, did you have anything that you'd like to add at this point. The one thing to remember is the marketplace in the middle can be from a variety of sources. So it could be the top four accountancies, it could be the top four legal firms, it could be smaller SME consultants, it could be industry SMEs. And the delegates and I'm going to go through some examples as I progress, the delegates could either be from an industry or they could be from legal services or they could be from the organization itself. So in the HMRC example that Sakeed mentioned, they are processing 27,000 cases with 30 internal delegates. If they wanted to use this approach, we'd be able to provide hundreds if not thousands of delegates to be able to scale up to do those 27,000 fraud cases very quickly. So, Kevin, I'm going to pass over to you now so you can give a little bit of context about proof of trust and IBM relationship, how we're working towards going to market together in various different industries and we can work through some, some real life examples of where proof of trust is providing benefit with context the different products that we've produced. Okay, next slide please. Thank you. So last summer, Sakeed and Dean came in to see myself and team in IBM in London. And we were talking particularly at the time in the blockchain space, and where the proposition started was around smart contracts, and it was about executing the smart contract. In a way that had some legal review or SME review rather than just writing by a programmer, a digital contract that didn't provide the provision for the future, the recourse to enable the correct legal provisions in the event of disputes. The other thing it would do is in the event of a dispute, similarly to smart contracts where you can get delegates to review the contract, you could pull in a pool of delegates from either legal accounting or multi industry background to actually as Sakeed says, go through that case, and I'll give some examples of how cases look and show you some screens in a minute. And at the time we were focused on smart contracts and we could really see the benefit of that so we teamed up. As times progressed, this isn't only trying tied to smart contracts. It can be any digital process and that there's a shipping example that I'll give in a minute which was actually tied more to an ERP solution. Similarly, for hard copy contracts, this could be the future of legal services. And it could be as Sakeed says, the new marketplace to actually provide that review. It's API centric so you can call it from wherever we've built client applications as well so you can call it from that, but really this is flexible and we'll see some examples of how we do that. So in phase one which we completed over the winter and early spring, we built a platform so the platform's ready to go, the repeatable process is there. We built a couple of candidate examples around insurance and tax fraud at that point. But since then we've been taking it even further. And what we're really doing is creating something that enables quick onboarding. And we've also looked at the screens and what needs building for specific industries. So one of the things we've been looking at our employment disputes, particularly contract employment with the United Nations, one of the biggest areas of potential for proof of trust is around high value insurance. So whether it be personal injury claims or whether it be B2B in the reinsurance or portfolio of insurance space. Similarly, when you look at supply chain, there are portfolios of contracts that are brought together. So things like a trade execution dossier which will have the trade finance documents in it, it will have the trade credit risk documents, it will have things like dangerous goods. It will ensure things like goods arriving on time and not perishing. So all of that's got to be written correctly in the first place. And when disputes happen, you again need to pull the delegates in to actually resolve that. The other area, as Sakeed mentioned is government. So across government, particularly tax fraud, whether it be a vac carousel fraud or whether it be the multiple flavors of COVID fraud that we're seeing in the current pandemic. Or in some economies, there are things like financial markets products that are actually regulated and managed by government. So things like promissory notes and the assurance of that. And then lastly, government departments are big complex beasts, much like B2B businesses in the private sector. And so there are handoffs between the departments and they may be disputes, they may just be around resolution. And certainly inter-ministry process enhancement is something that we've been looking at, particularly in the Middle East and emerging economies. And some of these solutions we've been presenting at ministerial and prime minister level to countries like Bermuda and Bahrain. So Sakeed, next slide, please. So starting to move on to some real examples. So I mentioned about high value personal injury claims. And what we're talking about here is hundreds of thousands, if not millions. It's difficult for the individual that's making the claim. One, they don't understand the cost, they don't understand the process. They may be done trust their insurer. And so what's really needed is something that enables the dispute resolution and arbitrage independently, impartially, and across both the claimant and the claim handler in the insurance companies across the insurance business networks. You need to accelerate it. You need to reduce the costs, particularly for the claimant access to justice and one of the benefits of proof of trust. And again, the UN example has shown this is in emerging economies, individuals may not have access to justice proof of trust being global enables potentially multi-lingual solutions for those emerging economies. And what it's actually doing is being equivalently impartial as court proceedings today. And we've been taking this to major legal firms, we've had conversations with luminaries like Professor Saskin and the world of online courts, and certainly this has got a role to play. And then lastly, insights and we'll see on the next screen how that works. We actually learn from the experience. So as we actually provide a resolution going through the patented algorithm with multiple delegates bringing together consensus. We actually record that and we track it and we make it available. For instance, in the insurance case, it can be passed back into the underwriting process to enable better underwriting. It can be a service that proof of trust provider insight services. And what we've really built is something that's providing dispute resolution, promptly and fairly as cost effective access to justice in a similar way to online courts. Now in the COVID world, that's really important because courts are really constrained so the timing is good for this. So keep can we have the next slide please. So here's an example of insurance and this this is how we build the use case. So we use design thinking we create personas so in this case we've got the claimant and the claim handler. There'd also be the lawyer that's representing the claimant we build the personas on the top right hand side we've got a process flow and I'll go through that in a bit more detail. We review what happens today. We build the as is process. We map out on swim lanes to understand what each of the personas is actually doing as we run through the process. And we build the client screens and the correct writing to the ledger or to off ledger because we segregate things like personal information and information that may need to be deleted at some stage in the pack that pulls together the both what we call the killer question and the associated information and again I'll show a screen of how that works in a minute. So keep can we go to the next screen. So this is an overview of the end to end high value personal injury claims process for insurance. It could could equally be applicable to be to be claims particularly if you're re ensuring high value assets it could be business to business. But what we've got on the the left hand side, we kick off the process and there's some triage between the claim handler and the claimant. They may agree it then they may approve or they may reject the claim, but as often happens, it becomes more and more difficult as you progress down this profit process flow that the relationship becomes more and more constrained. Now it may be at that stage you even call proof of trust early and some delegates say well in this kind of claim our experience is this is the outcome this is the cost and it enables the claimee or the claimant and the claim handler to perhaps arrive at a resolution earlier. Now the the other thing that can happen is they fall out. So we've got to the point where there's a lack of trust between them and what we need is an impartial organization to come in and deliver that. And that's what the proof of trust solution is its marketplace wide. It's a design for multiple insurers so something that sits in the industry at that point right in the middle of the screen where we see the proof of trust blue logo that they are in vote. So at that point there is a question raised so and generally in this case it will be does this amount appear a fair amount of reward or recompense for the situation that's happened or not. And behind it there will be supporting documents so as the claimers kicked off both the claimant and the claim handler will have created some documentation that's collated it's secured. It's provided in a pack together with other documentation and it might be things like the weather. It might be information about a company or the individuals or other parties. And then the delegate themselves does a review and that's passed back. This is independent. It's got similar provenance and similar similar legal weight as online courts and that's why we have a QC that's driving this and his team behind the categories of disputes and how we handle them. So at that point the delegates all go through their review. They come back the consensus algorithm either generates full agreement or it might generate 80% agreement and based on the business rules that's then passed back to the claimant and the claim handler. Now at that point, it may be everyone's happy. And we can go ahead and that's the resolution. Now what might happen is there's some either some more information or perhaps there's more dispute around this and we have a super delegate process where we can go through the same loop again and pass that back to the individual and what we're really doing similar rigor rigor to court impartial process, something that's industry wide that enables access to justice. So, Sakeed next slide please. I might just add at this point as well that the delegates within the system operate under anti collusion properties within the technology. So we admit the opportunity for either party involved in the dispute to actually communicate directly with the delegates. So we could offer any opportunity for external interference in that process as well so there can be no majority sway. And the delegates are anonymized from each other as well in that panel, so they work independently to use their expertise or industry knowledge to come to the conclusion, based on their own view, as opposed to majority view. So, when we look at insurance, it's not only personal insurance that will benefit it's anything that's high value that's going to have commercial considerations that would be a candidate for dispute. So things like the London market or any major reinsurance co insurance market, looking at the border or the portfolio of contracts, particularly as they head towards digital. And again making sure that they're written correctly in the first place, and then secondly handling the disputes commercial insurance around property, particularly around liability and direct to liability high value claims, and also providing back insights and underwriting trade credit risk insurance and the trade finance associated with it high value claims, life and pensions both for high value personal claims, and quite often life and pensions and other products in in insurance are mapped together as a portfolio and then it's very insured. So you then get the potential for B2B disputes, any speciality insurance products that tend to be more complex. And then behind that, the underwriting process will benefit from the insights as we've already said, and all of the learnings from every use case are being captured and either fed back to the organization that's made the request, or fed back as insights that can be offered as a service. It doesn't stop at insurance. So certainly banking and trade finance and loan agreements trade execution dossiers, where you're letting contracts digitally or even calling them manually as a service to this marketplace. So that's a great review and one of the insights will actually enable writing of better smart contracts, and then things like home buying and home rental, actually looking at both the commercials when you set up home buying and rentals and disputes around that, promissory notes we've spoken about, and tax fraud and shipping registry I'm just going to go through a couple of examples. So Sakeed next slide. This is an example of some of the real screens that we've built as part of the proof of trust scenarios. And this is about shipping registry. And particularly in Bermuda, you either get high value assets like this luxury motor yacht that we can see in the middle, or it could be container ships. But significant commercial assets. And what we've got on the left hand side, this is the application to register a ship that an individual would fill out. They put in some of their personal details. And what they'd be kicking off in this case is the request to register a ship. But the register of a ship actually goes away and does some delegate processes behind it. And on the right hand side of the screen we've got an example delegate screen. This is a simple example. And what we've got right in the middle where it says application summary is what we call the killer question. And basically this is saying someone's requested to register a ship. As a delegate, can you go away and review all of the documents and either agree or disagree. So that's the question that enables a binary result. So we've got some case attributes so it's actually giving things like the name of the ship. And then it's got some documents that will be referred to. And in this case, it would probably go to some legal SMEs, it might go to a shipping SME. It would go to some individuals that will go and do a survey of the ship to make sure it actually exists. What you probably got is a handful of people that would all at the same time concurrently do their review. They would answer the killer question, and then the consensus algorithm brings that all together to get agreement. And in this case, the agreement would be a successfully registered ship. In the previous insurance case, the agreement might be, did we agree with the award that was being suggested by the insurer or not and we're just going to go on to another example around tax fraud and I'll talk about how that's covered as well. So revenue related fraud, when we first started building this last summer, we started looking at that carousel fraud. So as someone sells a car or a high value asset and they ship it abroad. There's a lot of fraud where that's never actually shipped an individual's claim for the vat on the asset and it's totally fraudulent. We know that immediately after that there will be a myriad of different COVID related fraud problems, things like the coronavirus job retention scheme in the UK, eat out to help out bounce back loans, all of them. There are people that are sitting in back offices, just trying to work out how you can defraud the revenue. And Mr. Keep says, just the one job retention scheme or furlough fraud is three and a half billion potential fraud in the UK, and there's 27,000 cases that haven't been dealt with yet. Now when you've only got 30 individuals in HMRC that can actually resolve this or in the 10s, you actually need to be able to scale up. And what proof of trust is doing is, first of all, the traditional audit and legal services SMEs providing a marketplace that can be enabled to look at that and the screen that Sakeed showed that showed five delegates all looking at things at the same time. The delegates might be legal SMEs from big law firms, they might be legal SMEs from smaller firms, they might actually be industry SMEs, it might be revenue individuals themselves that are part of the delegate pool. But what we're really doing is enabling scale, we're providing experts and in the insurance case, you might have some insurers that are experts in one field and not in another. By having this marketplace, they can actually bring in SMEs in the areas that they're not involved in. And then when you look at what proof of trust adds over and above this. It's a scalable delegate review process. It's impartial. It prevents collusion.  You can find that different governments across different countries as cases kick off actually share their resources and pull their resources using this mechanism. So it's repeatable and scalable, you can apply it to any of the three flavors of fraud that we've seen in the UK, or others globally, but then you can provide it to other revenue fraud scenarios. The one thing that really comes out that's even more added value is the insight, visibility and metrics that you get behind this. Next slide, Sakeep. So that this is a simple screen. It's some of the real screens that we enable in terms of analytics. And as the disputes are resolved, we're capturing metadata. We're capturing things like volumes and types of disputes. We're capturing things like typical case outcomes. And as I said right at the beginning, those typical case outcomes could be used even without going into huge pools of dispute resolution. It could just be used to inform early resolution of the case with an insurer. So you can drill down on these metrics so we can see types of cases we can see the delegates and their rankings. You can click on any one of these in the solution and drill down and see what's the detail behind it. And these can be tailored to the needs of the business network. So next slide Sakeep. Thanks for that as well Kevin. I think in sophisticated large commercial organizations. There is a continuous improvement life cycle that exists already and we're talking about how well how can proof of trust enable legal departments or legal services within those organizations to improve and benefit from digitization. And that's specifically what proof of trust is looking at. You can look at a high level aggregate view of all the different types of policies or contracts that you have in place. And you can point to specific clauses or potentially weak phrases within those clauses that lead to loss as a result of dispute. So, it's quite a powerful tool that enforces continuous improvement within organizations. So, concluding, we've seen some screens of the solution. It's built. It is a marketplace with reputational, reputationally rated subject matter experts. It enables additional escalation. We've shown you the killer question we've shown you example screens behind that every type of dispute we will class as a category. And behind the category will have an outline killer question which is what has to be answered. We'll actually think about the documents that are associated with that. And as we said, as we've said several times, our CEO is a QC and his team are actually providing the legal input in terms of how is it all of that and the business rules formulated. We will provide significant benefits in terms of access to justice and dispute resolution, and that the four insurance companies trade finance, not having to keep liabilities on the books, and resolving this quickly will provide significant benefit in terms of provision. So, here are some areas that we've seen so around trade credit risk insurance and both B2B insurer and the trade finance to insurer disputes. There are also insurance legal processes whether it be subrication and handoffs between insurance or high value claims, invoicing and invoice finance capital markets in particular, where you've got products and there's lots of B2B interaction, even across portfolios as well. Disputes over credentials. Direct to liability contract employees, and then regulatory reporting and compliance, and this could both be a class of disputes in the government space, but it can also be built into the business networks that we're servicing. We talked about fraud and fraud prevention, and then it is a new marketplace and channel for dispute resolution, creating regulation and legal dispute marketplaces and adding extra provenance because this is all delivered with private and permission blockchain behind it. So I'm going to stop there and I'll hand over to Sakeeb, and then we'll probably take questions as well Sakeeb do you want to wrap up with anything. I'd just like to thank everybody for their time today and we welcome questions around proof of trust and what it is that we're doing. Nothing further to add, I think Kevin you've done a great job of detailing some example use cases but I'll stop the show for now. And if anybody has any questions after today, you can always reach out to us via email addresses as shown. Thank you Sakeeb. I see in the chat that two questions from Camelish. The first is solution as production deployment. And second is about Bermuda shipping register. Camelish, we'd like to ask anything to Sakeeb and to. So, is this solution implemented in the Bermuda second registry. The solution is built ready to deploy. And one of the things we've done when we took it to the, both the Minister of Shipping and to the Prime Minister of Bermuda. We actually built the screens and we demoed the real solution around shipping registry. What was quite interesting was their registry was more ERP in terms of its source rather than a ledger, and we used our APIs to simulate what they were doing with their existing ERP solution. Now one of the things that's interesting is the Bermuda government are actually looking at could they use this for other areas like registries of airplanes. The intergovernment dispute and again we mentioned about presenting this to the Prime Minister. They are very keen to use this across government. And similarly in Bahrain that we've been talking to the legal counsel of the Royal Family because Bahrain is a hotbed of blockchain. And they're looking at how can they embed this across processes for Bahrain. In terms of the API being called from multiple areas, but to answer your question, the solution is built ready to go. The only thing we do each time is we tailor it to actually meet with the immediate need and we would typically do that through design thinking and a small number of weeks of actually tailoring the specific dispute and as I showed in the insurance example, with personas and we can either build a client application or through API, it can be built into existing applications on the client side. Yeah, I got it. So actually why I asked regarding the Bermuda Sipping Registry because we were also talking to the Bermuda Registry I think six months back regarding the same kind of project. So just asked. Yeah, as Kevin said, we're looking at, you know, broad application across multiple departments with the Bermuda, including shipping registry and other different ministries as well. So we're now in a phase of exploring how we can work with them to effectively interconnect all those different ministerial departments. So shipping is just one example but there are many in-flight that we're exploring with them. It's Eugenio, Ikeven and Sakim. I just wanted to understand and try to brainstorm with you because I really think that your products could fit into the DSI ICC initiatives because actually one of the main benefits of your products is actually to support and empower the settlement disputes in the trade process. And of course DSI has one specific layer that is focusing on legal harmonization of the rules. And so for all of course of the disputes that came come from their activities. And also I see as his own jurisdiction in terms of international arbitration that could provide important database and records for your validation. So I suggest to you, you should talk with Oswald that have a lecture within our SIG in the past weeks, because I think your tool could help these ICI overall in to support this harmonization of the trade progress. We definitely feel there is harmony. There's huge amounts of synergy in what we're looking at and what DSI is looking at at the moment. We'd be delighted to engage with Oswald and the wider ICC team on that initiative. Certainly as you said, when you're talking about global trade, it's about establishing jurisdiction. Certainly I'm not the lawyer that our CEO, Dean Armstrong, can talk more about jurisdictional value. But what we're really saying is that as long as there are terms set in place between two parties, and jurisdiction is established, proof of trust can utilize our internalized network of legal and business specialists from all around the world. So that we're promoting faster and speedier transactions and settlement. I think the synergy is there. The core principles of our ethos at proof of trust which is faster, fairer, independent. You know, we've seen how technology has assisted trade finance and, you know, multiple different industries and we've seen how the legal industry has suffered and slowed down those processes sometimes to years. And we're here to really put a flag in the ground and ensure that we move things forward accordingly. Yeah, I totally agree with you because actually ICC can provide an international recognition framework for law and jurisdiction, over which the parties can be binding to and supporting to your tool to execute their transaction in the trade operations. So I definitely see these and I will support you in any way and probably Andrea and Julian, we should support this. Absolutely. I agree with you. I mean it's really important to put proof of trust internationally with the ICC DSI. It's fundamental. Dean and I are presenting to the ICC conference on ADR and dispute resolution this Thursday. So, okay. Hear it from the CEO's mouth. Okay. And just one question from my side. So, you know, of course, Kevin, you mentioned fraud detection and stuff like this.  A question that I had in mind for a few weeks. Is there any possibility of having an application of your solution to detection of fraud in documentary credits and demand guarantees. Any question marks so far, you know, traditional state violence and disrespect. It's what foggy heavily based on jurisdiction and natural jurisdiction is running development. You visit. We've mentioned quite a lot about insights and insights are things that build over time. So the insights will be low when you first start. But certainly quickly as you're running cases through it the insights will grow and you'll get a knowledge base of types of case types of fraud. And the COVID examples that the governments will typically have their own mechanism for highlighting fraud, and then they'll bring that to the dispute resolution process. But there's no reason why over time when you learn from those, you those insights can't be built into AI and used to actually do the analysis as well. So that's certainly direction of travel, and it's something will that will evolve as the proof of trust service and insights evolve. So keep you probably got a view on that as well. I would say stay tuned around AI in the use of AI. I think what we're looking at today is, you know, the future has been all about heavy automating. We need really precise information that can only that can only come from humans, I guess in a legal services for detection world. How do we capture that trend? And I think using proof of trust internal network to grab gather, especially from around the world. We're in a prime position to facilitate that. It's certainly on our agenda for the future. But as Kevin said that requires time to build up all of that knowledge and data around it. So stay tuned. We're definitely looking into it. Certainly on my radar, a CIO to deliver something around. Well, say that we can talk more often in the future. I'll stay tuned for sure. I'm really interested. You know, one of my main concerns is integration of blockchain and artificial intelligence. If you look at back at what we're trying to do in the past, you can notice this. So thanks. I will keep it a careful eye on base and we'll keep the light on cleaners. Absolutely will be in touch. You know, I'm going to open the lines of communication to everybody in the group. We'll keep you guys abreast of all the initiatives that we're working on as as the company grows. We certainly stay in touch for any opportunities that we can gather in the trade finance space as well because we feel that a certain it's a very close fit to what we're doing. Yeah. Thank you so much. Anybody else would like to make questions is keeping Kevin. So I have in general question not going to the key. In the trade finance. What any exam banks play role. Because I'm working with couple of exam banks and they want to be part of the trade finance products and the kind of groups. So what they can generally have a role in a trade finance. So they because I want to be want to be invite them to join this trade finance. I think it's about assurance of the transaction more than anything. I think if you have an underlying protocol like proof of trust that can secure and honor the terms maintain the integrity between the transaction of multiple different participants. Not I'm speaking about the proof of trust in general in trade finance perspective what is it exporting import banks play role in the trade finance. Certainly not the trade finance expert but we've got a room full of. Maybe using or maybe and you should probably address that question to the room as opposed to me I'm proof of trust. Certainly not the trade finance expert. Yeah, sorry. There are a few here that can help you. I mean, I'm not. We help you can let you know understanding how you know export import banks obviously very important in the funding of transactions and trade finance globally right. So happy happy to help. Good to see good through the information that I'm uploading constantly. I'm about to. Okay, so actually, there is a one consortium of the import expert banks, where are the global export input bank. I think every country has some kind of export input bank called Exum Bank. And there's a consortium of the banks and they I think don't know what their role play in the trade finance but currently we are serving their trade finance and the blockchain kind of education those banks and they want to be part of the. Trade finance SIG or trade finance. Our platforms, maybe we did our trade or maybe DLT laser. So but I'm not understanding what their role play in a trade finance transaction life cycle. Yeah, okay, I think maybe we'll have another conversation on that kind of leash because I think that's definitely definitely it's an in depth discussion about where banks and everyone. And, you know, I'm sure can help you there as well right as a banker himself on where where they fit in but they in a correspondent banks all kinds of different banks take up. But in terms of today just asking, you know, say he and Kevin. So what what's so if we want to work with you how what's what's your what's your business model how you're rolling around the world. You know, obviously, your IBM says she'll be in every country now. Because you have scale right so how do we work with you how do people want to work with you. What's the, you know, how do we engage go to market back. Everybody reach out to us via our website through trust.com through there there's various contact forms depending on the type of engagement you're looking at we're ready and able to provide demonstrations workshops. I think every client who reaches out to us has a slightly different tailored solution, as Kevin mentioned. So we're, we're all about engaging and working closely with our clients to provide workshops to tease out what that solution is. And then the business model associated with that differs depending on the type of solution that we're presenting, I is it governmental is it commercial what sector is it in. So we've got multiple different types of subsets of business model at the moment. And we're working through all that now. Excellent. You see the work of governments. So you're working with these are Bahrain I heard I had the Muda right. Yeah, and basically places that are very keen on blockchain is that kind of like the sweet spot you think it's a big government organization silo that have lots of disputes and is that. Absolutely. There are two main focal areas that's large organizations that struggle with, you know, significant numbers of high value disputes and that could be a large banking organization or an insurer as Kevin has mentioned. People were struggling with huge amounts of liabilities and the encumbrances of waiting for court times and slow ADR processes that would be one subset of clients that we're interested in we're working with. And second, as you mentioned is governmental governments are highly sophisticated they struggle with managing fraud. They had huge scaling issues when we are impacted by things like pandemics. So proof of trust solution designed to resolve a number of different issues in the governmental place is there are entirely complex beasts if you will. But we've got a couple of really solid products that we're working with governments around the world. I think if I can build on that that there are two aspects to the, the, the, the areas that we're dealing with. One is digitizing, and it was so keeps that we were talking about the use of the term digitizing on the very first slide. And that's important. So, enlightened countries or organizations that are going through a change where by default they might end up with just programmers driving it rather than the right SMEs. And that is about access to justice. So particularly in either the emerging or the fast moving economies its economies with with change. This is a benefit because it enables a larger marketplace and, as you probably gathered, this isn't just a technology solution. That's a complete new marketplace. And that's why we've been working with some of the largest legal services players around the globe to actually move this forward and when Sakeed use the planets and the Cosmos description. Certainly, the legal service business network is something that recognizes that this is time for change. And it's not so much turkeys and Christmas. It's about being able to provide a marketplace for the digital economy. Whereas today, it's very much hard copy done by word of mouth, and that's not sustainable going forward. And that's why some of the countries that we talked about are already enlightened and good candidates. Okay. So actually the construction if you look at the construction industry here in Hong Kong and continuous disputes right and enormous values are very large infrastructure projects is that that obviously that's mostly government as well. So that would be an area right maybe is an area that we're actually looking at. I mean, if we look at how elongated court processes can lead to entire projects abandonment. I mean, we've all seen cities with buildings that just aren't doing anything really and that could be the case of, you know, things or wheels spinning in court. I mean, everybody needs a pragmatic solution that can get, you know, the same rigor, but in a more pragmatic means and that's what we're here to do. So we are looking at the construction industry quite closely. Okay, interesting. I think we'll come to the end today. Andrea you're going to wrap up. Thank you. That was great. That was really nice guys. Thank you so much to keep in Kevin and you know, I think we can we can end the meeting Julian and you know, look for for the next meeting on 24th of November. Thanks everybody for joining and see you soon, hopefully. And keep this as well so you can always put information to our mailing list the mailing list right continue the conversation there right it's not just the meetings. Absolutely. Goodbye everybody.


Gadar ji, Mandawa Ventakeshwar ji, Srimati Anapurna ji, V. Hanumanth Rao ji, Madhuyakshi ji, Mahesh Gaut ji, Abdul Gani ji, our candidates Akhula Lalita ji, Sudarshan Reddy ji, Mohamad Shabir ji, Tahir Bin Hamdan ji, E. Anil ji, Juvanar Singh ji, Congress Party ki amare sab kare karta, TDP, TJS, CPI aur IUML ki sab amare pyare karta, bhaiyo aur bheno preske amare mitro, aap sab ka yaha dil se bahut-bahut swagat namaskar. Pahut saal pehle Telangana ki janta ne ek neya sapna dekhata, ek neya pradesh bana tha aur bahut khusurat sapna Telangana ke har yuvane har kisane ne dekhata. Aayudhu saavatsaraala kritham Telangana rastram, unka nootana handamayana kalan gandhindi, yuvataku, mahelaki Telangana yavatu janaanaki bangaru bhavishyatthu unka baavinshindi. Nara nilu, nidulu, niyamakalu katha. Haar ozu poratam nilu, niyamakalu, nidulu gurinshi jariyindi. Matlab aapka paani, aapka fund aur aapke yuvau ko rojgaar. Mana nilu, mana udyogalu, mana nidulu banaku kawala ni aapka poratam jariyindi. Aur in Vaidopar, KCRG Telangana ke chief minister bane. Iyukka hamila toti kalvakuntla chendarshekarao mukhe mantra hiinadu. Aapne socha tha ki KCRG ek nae state ko redesign karenge. Mir antha bhavinsharu, KCRgaru unka nootana abhidaya rastrandi nirmitsaraan nirmitsaraan jepi asinsharu. Bane bahashno ke baad, KCRG ne state ko redesign nahi kia, magar congress party ke haar karekam ko, haar project ko ono ne redesign karna shuru kar diya. Mir yukka asyaalani peda peda prasangala toti muncheshi unka hamil gule nereversi leidh gani, congress party kare karthalani hymsinshinaadu 50,000 crore rupeka pranita project tha usko redesign kia usko ek naam diya kaleshvalam project. Yabai velakotla to pranayita chevella projectani redesign peri toti kota peru vetti kaleshvalam projectu ani peru to tani ansanalu vibaritha inga penchehseinadu. 40,000, 50,000 crore rupeka kaam 90,000 crore me KCRG ne karwaya. Yabai velakotla projectani 9000 crore rupeku penchehseinadu. Aapka paisa 40,000 crore rupeka shrav naam badalne ke liye. 40,000, 40,000 crore rupeka kaam peru marpukara ko karchivetta ono. Aur fahida unke paribar ko. Tani yukka aadayamu labdi kutumbah sabbilak chandarana korake ek project redesign jesinadu. Mission kakatiya mein, mission bhagirata mein, KCRG ne publika paisa luta aur purane tanks ko peintkara. Mission bhagirata peru paena, mission kakatiya peru paena, unna neela tankilakku rangulesi pradha dubbunu luti deshadu. KCR ka matlab, kao commission rao. KCR ante kao commission rao. Aur pura ka pura fahida, telangana ki janta ko nahi unke paribar ko. Iyukka telangana sampada, telangana prajalak kakunda, yavathu aadayamu tana kutumbam koruku viryaginchkundunadu. Nidalu ki baat kare, aapke fund ki baat kare. To jab telangana peyda hua tha, 17,000 crore rupe surplus tha. Telangana rastra merepaat chesnappudu, telangana rastrani ki 17,000 crore rupe alu migulu budgetundedi. Aad saade chaar saal baat, 2,00,000 crore rupe ka karjaya aapke upar. Naal gunnara samachrala tarvatha, 2,00,000 crore rupe ka karjaya aapke upar. Telangana ki har paribar par 2,00,000 rupe ka karjaya hai. Prati telangana powerudi paena, 2,00,000 rupe alu appudis kochi petinadu. Magar KCR ki beta ki amdhani, 400 guna bari hai. Magar KCR kudku aadaya matram 400% virgina di. Niyamakalu ki baat kare, to telangana ki yuvavne, apna khun apna paseena dekar ish predesku banaya. Telangana yuvavulu tana chematani rakthani odinchi, rastra airporti ko poratam jeste, niyamakalu yemi jargala edu. Jo yuvavu ki free, fee reimbursement otiti usko roka. Vidyarthu lukuraku fees reimbursement idwara, badgu balahinavar gala kumana deksu kochi na, fees reimbursement iwakunda aapkesinadu. Lakhlaag yuvavu ko saalbe rozgaar dena ki baat ki thi nahi kiya. Lakshavudyogalu kalpisthanaan jepi haame ichi, ukka udyogam uda kalpinsale. Dhusri taraf, dilli me Pradhan Mantri kete 2 crore yuvavu ko har saal rozgaar dunga. Atu desham lo Pradhana Mantri, rondu kotla udyogalu desha yodha kalpisthanaan adu. KCR ki ke shabt, Pradhan Mantri ji ke shabt kokle hain. KCR yukka maatalu Pradhana Mantri ji yukka maatalu dhokabhaazi gaunayi. Yuvavu se agaram kisanu ki baat karein. Yuvakalu gurunchi, raitalu gurunchi maatala lante, desh aur telangana me kisan atam hatiya kar raha hai. Yubala desham lo telangana lo raitalu atma hatiya lu jeskundaaru. Telangana me 4,500 kisanu ne atam hatiya ki hain. Telangana rasham lo 4,500 mandi raitalu atma hatiya lu jeskundaaru. KCR ji naa sahi dam dete hain, naa sahi tari ke se loan waver karate hain aur jab kisan MSP maangate hain, to KCR ji ki sarkar un parhinsa karate hain. Raitu lukaraku utpatti dharan panthak utpa, desh sarayana dharayi vado, adugute waalan kottisthadu. Raitu rana maatara maatukunta leidu. Aur jab yaha kisanu ne paani maanga, jab kisanu ne kaha ki amari fasal barbaat aur hi hain, ame paani do, to KCR ji ne unko paani ne diya aur yaha pe police karaj kar diya. Ikad raitu lu, mi andar galsu balukonda prantham lu, nilivamana tte, pantal endi potunne nilu gawala tte, nilivakunda police olan betti kottisthadu. Aur jo dillime land acquisition, aat tam aapkele laite kisanu ki zameen bachane ke liye usko bhi no ne yaha pe radh kar diya hain, katham kar diya hain. Buusekara chattam desh ko chii, raitru naadukowala tte, aat chattana kuda nilu gawala tsi, raitu laki buusekara inchin aapku prachpalam lekunda deshnudu. Land acquisition bill me, nahi bill me saaf likkata, ki kisan se bina puche zameen nahi lija sakti hain. Aur agar zameen kisan dega, to market se chaar guna zada peisa usse milega. Buusekara na chattam lu, raitu laanumati lekunda, buumisekara inchaddaan jappi, buumisekara chattam lu undi, oka vela buumisekara na chesthe, adi market price ki naalugu, guna lekwaga iwaalan jappi kuda chattam lu undi. Aur aaj Telangana me us bil ko radh kar diya gaya hain. Aur yaha pe kisan ko, sahi dam zameen ke li nahi milta hain, kompensation nahi milta hain. Bu aaj chattana radhu deshnudu, Telangana lu, raitu laanumati buumulu laki ko nahi, aat prachpalam lekunda aapka deshnudu. Jo kisan ko ke liye, KCR ji ne nahi kia, wo congress party karke dikhayi gi. raitu la karaku haami issi, chaye ni KCR ju. Kade congressional party adhikarand koste, raitu lai kichina prati haami ni nere verisundu. Kisan o ka congress party aap pe dolaak rupe tak kaak loan waver karegi. Raitu la karaku runulakshalar runam maafini ventane amalugesundu. Satra crops pe, hab koh sai MSP delwaengi. He has told me that GST is making a huge loss to Gabbarsing tax and 28% has to pay tax to Gabbarsing tax. He has told me that GST is making a huge loss to Gabbarsing tax. I have convinced him that as soon as Congress party makes a government in Delhi, we will change GST. We will try to get 5 different tax and simplify GST. As soon as Congress party makes a government in Delhi, we will try to simplify GST. We will try to get 5 different tax and 28% has to pay tax to Gabbarsing tax. We will try to get 5 different tax and 28% has to pay tax to Gabbarsing tax. We will try to get 5 different tax and 28% has to pay tax to Gabbarsing tax. Now I met two families and they told me that it is very difficult for them. When people get trapped there, if someone dies, it is very difficult for them. For this, Congress party is going to make a fund of 500 crore rupees. Now I met two families and they told me that it is very difficult for them. When people get trapped there, if someone dies, they will make a fund of 500 crore rupees. When people work outside, they will help them. If they need help, they will help the whole Congress party. We are making a fund of 500 crore rupees. We are making a fund of 500 crore rupees. A few days ago, KCRG spoke very truthfully. He said that if he loses the election, he will go to his house to sleep and rest. He said that if he loses the election, he will go home and sleep. He said that he will take rest. But KCRG, you will rest in a house of 300 crore rupees. KCRG, you will rest in a house of 300 crore rupees. But you made a promise to the people of Telangana. You made a promise of two bedrooms. You did not fulfill the promise of giving the land. You made a house of 300 crore rupees. You said that you will build a house in two bedrooms. You said that you will give the land to the people of Telangana. But you made a promise to the people of Telangana. You said that you will give two bedrooms to 22 lakh people. You said that you will build a house for 22 lakh people. And you did not give 5,000 people. You could not build two bedrooms for 5,000 people. You convinced the foremen that you will give all of them the land. You did not give up the slope of the land of everyARE Donation. You did not fulfill the promise of completing the 100 crore required of Nizam'shope factory. You did not give them 100 crore, but you took 300 crore of the land, to build a house for them. If you really need one crore for a sugar factory, if you really don't have one crore for a sugar factory, then you will shut it down. If you spend only one crore for a sugar factory, then you will have a good life. So, as soon as you go to rest, Congress Party will give you 5 lakh rupees to make a house for the poor. If you are going to take rest, Congress Party will come for that. If you want to get a house for them for the poor, then you will have 5 lakh rupees to live in. If you pay 1000 rupees for old age pension, then you will have 2000 rupees to buy a house. If you use the heavy pension, then you will have only 2000 rupees to buy the house. If you take rest, you will have 30 beds for the hospital. If you pay 30 beds for every bed in the centre, you will be able to collect hospitals.  And the one who gives all of his power to his family, the Congress party will do it in the hands of the panchayat. The Congress party will give all the rights to the whole family. Every youth gets 3,000 rupees of unemployment allowance. Every youth gets 3,000 rupees of unemployment allowance. And we will try to give 1,000,000 youth a daily wage. We will do our best to make sure that we get 100,000 people in our daily wage. So KCR said right that he wants to rest after the elections. KCR said the truth. He said that he will take rest after the elections. In Delhi, there will be elections in 2019. Narendra Modi is the Prime Minister. He will be elected. In 2015, there will be elections in Delhi. In the country. In 2015. You see, Narendra Modi's help. In the Lok Sabha, in the Rajya Sabha, KCR did it. You see, Narendra Modi's help in Lok Sabha and in Rajya Sabha is KCR. KCR helped Modi. In the election, KCR helped Modi. He helped Modi to get power. KCR helped Modi. He helped Modi to get power. KCR helped Modi to have dominant president. He helped KCR to haveç he to be called the president. TCP diye. Postmodern. The country's every movement has said about demotorization that it is a completely useless program. It has destroyed everyone. KCRG has protested. The country has completely destroyed noteworthy. This is the destruction of the country. If it is destroyed, then only KCR will help Modi. KCRG has destroyed the factory workers who make BDs. KCRG has protested against GST. KCRG has protested against GST. KCRG has protested against GST. So the aim of KCRG is to rule KCR and their families in Telangana. And to rule Narendra Modi in Delhi. The aim of KCRG is to rule Narendra Modi in Delhi. The name of the TRS party is Telangana Rashtrasamati. The name of the TRS party is Telangana Rashtrasamati. The name of the TRS party is TRSS. The name of the TRS party is Telangana Rashtrasamati. This is Telangana Rashtrasamati. Now remember one thing. In India, Narendra Modi did GST and GST and destroyed the country. Think about it. Narendra Modi has changed the country. He has changed the country. He has changed the country. And in Telangana, KCRG betrayed the dream of Telangana. In Telangana, KCRG betrayed the dream of Telangana. For Telangana and the country, it is necessary that their partnership is over. For Telangana and the country, it is necessary that their partnership is over. The first step is to defeat the TRS in Telangana. And defeat the BJP in Madhya Pradesh, Shatishgarh in Rajasthan. And the second step is to defeat Narendra Modi in India. And defeat the congress party's government in Telangana and India. And the next step is to defeat Narendra Modi in India. And defeat the congress party's government in Telangana and India. One more question. We have to defeat Narendra Modi in the country. We have to bring Congress Party back to the country. We will not tell you about our mind. I will not tell you about my mind. Nowadays, Modi ji tells you about his mind every ten days. Iwal repu, Narendra Modi gaurav, I will tell you about your mind every ten days. We will listen to your mind, we will run the government of Telangana on your mind, you will tell us that the farmer of Telangana, the labourer of Telangana, the worker of Telangana, we will do that for you. There is a change in Telangana. And the dream you saw five years ago, for which thousands of people were martyred, who gave their blood, their sweat, that dream was fulfilled with you by the congress party. Telangana people are dreamers. For the last five years, hundreds of people have committed suicide. You will fulfill your dream, you will fulfill your dreams.


Watch what we do with these. About five minutes is all they needed. Spicy dinners, that's the red top. Deal wee, what'd you call me? Here we have a little bit of crystallized lemon. Would you like some lobster with your mayonnaise? But no really, I like a lot of mayonnaise.  One thing left to do, see if it's any good. I totally made that sauce up and that's the yum yum get you some.


The ABF is at Washington Brady here once again reporting on the freedom marches in Tasmania this time from Lonseston. Facts of it, so don't get your eyes crossed. Fourteen weeks ago today I was a normal sixteen year old going to school, working at my after school job, just doing normal teenage things, but then within three days of taking my second Pfizer shot my life has potentially changed forever. I've had all of around four weeks in and out of the LGH and doctors who looked at us like we were idiots at first because they never suspected that a vaccine could do this. I don't believe that you shouldn't take the vaccine at all, but I do believe that we should have a choice and should not be pressured into having a vaccine that could potentially do this to a new year. I would hate for anyone else's parents, family members, friends, anyone to go through what I am going through.