Everything you need to know to start a YouTube channel in 2021, a complete beginner's guide, part two of two. Now, if you haven't watched part one of the series, you need to go back and watch part one. It's super important that you do that. But if you have watched part one, let's get going because we're gonna show you in this video how to complete that channel and how to really get things off the ground and really get things rolling without making a lot of mistakes, without wasting a lot of your time. So let's get at it right now. Now, the number one thing I think a lot of people don't do, which you should do, is focus on search. And what do I mean by that? I mean, you need to make videos that people are searching for. Yeah, you may have some great ideas. But if you want people to watch your videos, you gotta make subjects that they're interested in. You gotta have content that they wanna watch. If you have that, you know, hands down, you're gonna get more views than somebody who just makes random videos. You gotta do your research. And the best way to do that is through TubeBuddy. I'll have a link in the description below. You can click on that, get a free membership to TubeBuddy.  Now keep in mind, even if you're doing videos that are for entertainment purposes, you know, maybe it's pranks, maybe it's, you know, commenting on sports, whatever it is, do your research. Okay, go out there and try to find other videos that are similar to yours that have a lot of views and look at what they did. See, it's so easy on YouTube because you can actually see people who've already been successful and just copy their success. Don't copy exactly what they do. That's not what I said. I said, copy their success. Look at the style, look at the way, look at the length. Look at how they edit their videos and use that to your advantage. Now, once you've kind of figured it out, and I don't mean figured out in as much as you're making millions of dollars, but let's say you're starting to get some views, then you could branch off and do different kinds of videos that you wanna do and experiment a little bit.  That's gonna prevent you from getting even more views. Sure, there's people who crush it with their very first video, but 99.9% of you will not, okay? You just won't, so don't expect that to happen. Don't get discouraged. If you only get one or two views or three views, just keep making videos. And I would say the next thing is pick a fight with somebody who's your own size. What do I mean by that? Well, if you're gonna be making videos, you don't wanna make videos that are compete with people who are huge, who get millions of views, okay? That's not what you wanna do. You can take some techniques from them, but you wanna pick middle-of-the-road type YouTubers and make something similar to what they're doing and go after that market. Now, what I mean by this, if you search for a subject within YouTube and you can't find any videos on the first page that have less than 20,000 subscribers, you're kind of fighting with the big dogs in the beginning. So you wanna make sure that first page results when you're searching, you can find some videos that are below 20,000 subscribers. Number three, quality over quantity. And I tell you this because I see so many people just make videos that are like, well, I'm just gonna make five videos a day. There's no way you could have a channel with great five videos a day. I actually know one guy who does post about four or five videos a day and they're pretty good, but man, he must work 24 hours a day to do that. And they're all kind of different and his channel is growing, but probably not as fast as it could, but you gotta applaud his effort. I would suggest you're doing at least two to three videos a week. If you could do four or five all the better, just keep in mind, more videos you do, the more views you're gonna get, as long as the content is good and as long as the video is good. If it's crappy video, if it's poor lighting, if it's awful audio, it doesn't matter if you make 20 videos a day, you're not gonna get views. Next thing, number four is actually be helpful. Yeah, be helpful. Have a video that's gonna help somebody out. When they finish watching your video, they should come away from it and say, gosh, now I know how to do this. Now I can do this easier. Now I can make this. Now some type of educational thing in your video that's actually gonna help the person out. Unless you're just making entertainment ones and that's a whole different genre. A lot of videos that you make, you wanna make sure that those titles are working. So let's say you were doing an educational one and you wanna do one of the best titles for YouTube videos. You should actually test it out. I've done some testing and they say that after 70 characters, I believe it is, it gets truncated and nobody's gonna see it and it's gonna hurt your videos. I tested it and it's not true, as a matter of fact. I can put a longer title on there and I still get clicks. Many times people will hover over and see the whole title and they like to click on those videos. So don't always go with those hard and fast rules. Sometimes you can break some of those rules and still do pretty well. Number five, your first goal should not be to make money. Now I know ultimately we all wanna make money but if you just go after the money grab in the beginning, people are gonna notice that.  And additionally, you don't wanna send them away from YouTube constantly because YouTube's gonna see that and they're not gonna want that. And if you're sending people away from YouTube to go buy your product or service constantly, you're not gonna get many views. YouTube is not going to show your videos to anybody. They're not gonna be suggested videos which are the best videos to have out there as suggested videos. And YouTube does that based on interaction, based on click through rate, based on a whole bunch of different algorithms. So what you should do in the beginning is make video content that is really genuinely helpful to people. When they finish that video, they come out of it and go, this is what I learned, this is what I know. Make sure it's a video that's actually helping them out. And if you genuinely do that, you'll end up with more subscribers and more views. If you wanna make money with YouTube, wait until you have subscribers, okay? I would say maybe hundreds or even thousands of subscribers. Then you can try to make more money but you gotta get some subscribers first. That's super important. Now what you can do is in your description you can offer some free downloads. If they click through and get those free downloads, that's cool. But I'd say even in the beginning I wouldn't even offer that because if YouTube sees you're taking people off the platform and you don't have any subscribers, they're gonna really mark your channel down and they're not gonna show your videos to people. And the truth be told, people are not going to click much. If you have less than a thousand subscribers, people are not gonna click and convert any house. There's really no point in you even saying anything about that. Number six, and I kinda alluded to it, keep the viewers on YouTube, okay? Keep them on YouTube.  Don't constantly tell them in the video to go to this URL or go to this website. If you do that, it's gonna hurt you in the long run. You may think, gee, I'm gonna automatically make money by doing this, but you're not because it's gonna hurt your viewership. That's a whole lot better to do on down the road once you have 10, 20, 30,000 subscribers. Now occasionally I'll tell people I have a free course down there they can click and learn on it. But for the most part, I'm here giving you content. I'm not selling you anything. Number seven, the worst video to make. This is my first video. Okay, almost everybody does that. They go, I'm gonna make a video that tells everybody who I am and why I'm making this channel. They don't care. Number one, they don't care. Number two, they're not searching for that. They never go in, let me type in my first video. People just don't type that in. So the odds of that video being seen just not gonna happen anyhow. Now, you can have an explainer video on your channel if you want, that's okay. But your first video should have some real content that people can grasp onto and get real value. So here's the other problem with that. YouTube looks at videos and says, what is this video about? What are they trying to do? What are the keywords? And if you're doing a video about, this is my first video, it's not gonna rank anywhere. So it's really just a waste of your time. And keep in mind, YouTube, they're on your side. Yeah, they are. Because we both have the same goal here. I wanna get a lot of views and they wanna get a lot of views. So if I make good content that's useful to people, I'll get more views. And if they see that you're getting more views, they're gonna push your videos out to more people. So they're not working against you. If your channel's not working out, your videos aren't working out, you need to look at what you're doing. So many times I'll hear people say, well, YouTube doesn't like me. They don't like my channel. It has nothing to do with you or your channel. It has to do with what you are doing. And if you say, well, YouTube doesn't work anymore, well, why are so many people starting YouTube channels and doing so well? It's gotta be you. Every now and then we get to stop and go, hey, maybe it's me. Maybe it's me that's screwing up. Maybe I'm not doing stuff right. Matter of fact, there is no maybe to it. That's exactly what's happening if you don't do well on YouTube. Number eight, go to YouTube and watch videos. Yeah, you know, if you're in a particular niche, let's say you're a barbecue guy and you're making barbecue videos, go look at all the top barbecue channels on there and see what they're doing, see what they're offering, see what recipes they're making. Do your research. You've gotta understand how YouTube works and how other people are using YouTube. If you understand how they're using it and getting results, you'll be able to get the same results. And keep in mind, watch time is the most important metric on YouTube. The number one thing that YouTube wants is for people to watch more on YouTube, okay? Because the way YouTube makes money is they run ads. And if they run ads, they need eyes on those ads. And if you can keep somebody on YouTube watching more and more videos, whether I'm telling them about, like this video has a part one, you gotta go back and watch it. Or if I'm telling them about another video or if I put videos up on the screen at the end of this, you wanna keep them on the platform. If you do that, YouTube's gonna see that and they're gonna send more people to your channel. Next, number nine is make evergreen content. Evergreen content is something that will last on for years and years and years. You know, maybe it's making a great spaghetti bolognese. Maybe it's gardening and growing tomatoes. Those types of things will last for years and years and years. You know, if you make one on political things, which I don't recommend, but if you make one on, let's say, a sports team that won the series this year, or the playoffs, you know, that's only good for that year and then it's dead. Nobody's gonna wanna watch it anymore. Yeah, Martina, it's really about the viewers. Okay, don't try to make videos for the algorithm. Try to make viewers for your audience. Find out what your audience wants. If you already have a list, you can poll them, you can ask them questions. You know, they have a lot of questions and they'd like to get them answered. And that's the number one reason people go to YouTube. It's 60% education, it's 40% entertainment. Now, if you can make some really good educational videos and they're also entertaining all the better, but you gotta understand the reason they're there is to learn something, to solve a problem, to get rid of some pain point. And if you can do that through your videos, you'll do well. Never try to hack the algorithm. Don't buy subscribers, don't buy likes, don't buy contents, don't buy anything, okay? Even if you want to do that and even if that really did help, understand that they're all fake anyhow. And if you have subscribers who aren't watching your videos, YouTube's gonna look at that. They're gonna go, yeah, they got 10,000 subscribers but only 200 of them ever watch any of their videos. They must be fake. YouTube can figure that out. They are smarter than you. You can't trick them. Number 11, use your video description. I mean, I was guilty of this in the beginning. I had no description down there. Use that description. Believe it or not, a lot of people actually read that description. And I'll tell you somebody who always reads that description, YouTube, okay?  If you don't have one, you're missing out, okay? Put a description in there of what your video is. Now, a few questions I get asked every now and then is YouTube free? Yes, you can start a channel 100% free on YouTube. Doesn't cost you anything at all. Why wouldn't everybody in the world just take advantage of that? Think about that. Everybody should have a YouTube channel. Thank God they won't. Thank God most people won't work hard. Thank God most people won't compete with me and I appreciate that. Thank God most people will never even get to a thousand subscribers because that leaves more audience for me. Now, YouTube is free but there's some costs to making videos. The number one cost I think is the biggest cost and it's time. Like right now, this cost me a lot of time. This is time I could spend doing something else but I'm making a video here. Why? Because I'm in it for the long haul, okay? I know on down the road it will pay off. Today, will I make money on this video? No, I won't. I know I won't. But if I keep making enough videos, I will make money and that's what you have to remember.  Now, this does take time. People say, well, how long does it take to get 1,000 subscribers? There is no length of time. There is no length of time. Some people can do one video and get 1,000 subscribers. The odds of that happening are almost zero. If you make a video and you even get 20 or 50 views, you're doing pretty good and a good discretion is if you get over 100 views on a video, you have crushed it as a new creator. So don't expect big numbers in the beginning. They will build as you do more videos. It took me a long time. I worked my channel for a while. I didn't really do much with it for the first four, four and a half years and I just did some videos randomly here and there and then in the past year, I really put effort into it. I got monetized. I got everything's rolling, got money coming in but it was because I put in that effort and you're gonna have to do the same thing but it does take time. Now, there's certainly other ways to make money on YouTube. You can have affiliate links in your description. You can do brand deals. You can do product reviews. You can have affiliate links to Amazon and there's a lot of different ways you can make money on YouTube but I would say initially you need to not worry about all that stuff and you just need to start making videos. So if you're new to YouTube, so if you're new to YouTube, congratulations, okay? That's a really cool thing that you're doing and you're heading in the right direction. I will tell you, don't quit. That's the biggest thing that I see happen to people is they're super excited in the beginning. They hear all these stories about people making millions of dollars on YouTube and they wanna do the same thing. I wanna be a YouTuber. I wanna have people commenting and liking and all that. The truth be told, when you first start doing videos nobody's gonna comment on them.  It may take you 150 to 200 videos to even get monetized and sometimes you won't at that. I mean, well, this channel here, I've got over 750 or 60 videos. The last time I checked it, I don't even check that part anymore. So that's a lot of videos. Sometimes it can take 1,000 videos to really start seeing any money coming in and that's not gonna be big money. It's not. The average YouTuber who gets 100,000 subscribers, I think I read, was 3,891 videos. 3,891 videos. I mean, if you made a video every single day for the entire year, that's only 365 videos.  You need to get started. Seriously, you need to get started and you cannot quit. I hope you enjoyed this video. I hope that gave you some insight. I hope I didn't talk you out of starting a YouTube channel. It's a great thing to do and you can make a lot of money. You just gotta put in effort and you gotta put in time. Think of it this way.  And when you get out, you have no guarantee of ever making any money, right? It's just a college degree. Why not spend a couple years on YouTube and you're pretty much guaranteed you're gonna have some money coming in if you just stick with it. Thank you so much for watching this video. I do have a course below if you wanna grab it. $97 course, absolutely free. And don't forget to subscribe if you haven't done so. Click that button down there and ring the bell. Turn on all bell notifications so you're notified every single time I do a new video. This was part two. Please go back to part one if you haven't watched it and I'll see you in the next video. Hey, thanks for watching my video. Don't forget to subscribe to my channel and click that little bell right there so you can be notified every time I do a new video. Also, click on one of those videos there. Keep watching on my channel.


We're going to jump right in and try to keep as close to on schedule as we possibly can. So I'm happy to introduce our first panel for the day on the central bank approaches to financial inclusion moderated by Greta Bull. Great. Thank you, Adrienne. I have the unenviable job of having to come right after Jennifer Tesher, and this isn't the first time that's happened to me. But the good news is I have a really amazing panel who are going to do all the work for me. I get the best out of them. So a couple of just comments up front, and then I'm going to turn over to these guys because I think they have so much to say. So unfortunately I wasn't part of the conversations yesterday, but in the hallway conversations and over dinner last night I got a little bit of insight into what was being discussed. So it's clear that digital and particularly data that digital relies on so heavily is making the lives of financial sector regulators increasingly complicated. It doesn't respect traditional national or regulatory boundaries. It doesn't really respect any boundaries at all. And it's challenging regulators both in developed markets and in emerging markets in very similar ways. But emerging markets are facing this challenge both with really accelerated change in their market, so the leapfrogging Jennifer was talking about, but often with far fewer resources at their disposal and just having to scramble to sort of figure out how to deal with this explosion of financial innovation. And in a lot of ways it's really challenging the very notion of what the role of a central bank is and what the mandate of a central bank is. In addition, and I've seen this a lot in my work, is there's increasing complexity and interdependence between the roles of different sorts of regulators. So we have central banks, which are often, as Babak said, separate from supervisory authorities. We have telecommunications authorities. But we also have consumer protection, competition, data privacy authorities. So there's, or we don't actually more commonly than not. And so there's this very volatile mix of different challenges that don't necessarily live in one place. So how do we start thinking about connecting the dots between the rapidly changing mandates of these institutions to ensure not just system stability, but to Jennifer's point, financial health and actually I would say for an emerging markets point of view, economic growth. And how do we make sure that financial and digital inclusion stay an important part of this emerging regulatory landscape? And I think based on some of the conversations yesterday, I'd like to maybe make a couple of observations. I think there's a lot of different viewpoints here about what we actually mean by a central bank. Babak raised this in one way, but I think it's almost even broader than that. So I think just for the sake of discussion, and I think the panel here is going to maybe pick this apart a little bit, but for the sake of discussion, let's just say that that's the regulator of the financial sector. However, a country decides to define that and we'll dig in, I think, on that topic a little bit more. There's something else that has been sort of nagging at the back of my mind because I've increasingly heard the term fintech used in the same way as the term financial inclusion. They're often conflated and they're not the same thing. They're interlinked and they're important to each other, but I think we should be sure to make, we should make sure that we're talking about these things in terms of what we mean. At least from my perspective, financial inclusion is financial inclusion for the poor or for people who just don't have access to financial services. Fintech is a great way of helping us get there, but fintech is concerned with a whole bunch of other things and challenging the financial system in a much more fundamental way. Financial inclusion is broader and we need to think about how those two things are different and how they interact with each other in this broader conversation because I feel sometimes we start losing the meaning of the word financial inclusion in the way that it's used sometimes. In short, we have many exciting questions to explore as we contemplate what the central bank of the future might look like. And I have an amazing panel to help us think about this. So I'm going to briefly introduce them and then we're just going to jump right in to some questions. What we'll do is we'll have an initial discussion around a set of questions that I've shared with the panel and we've discussed online. And then we'll open up the floor to Q&A. So think now and as we go on about what your questions are, I hope we'll have a lively discussion with the floor. So introducing myself, my name is Greta Bull. I am the CEO of Seagap, the consultative group to assist the poor. It's a think tank that's housed in the World Bank. We've been around for about 25 years since 1995. We're very focused on how financial services, technology can help really bring benefits and impact to the poor. So including poor people in the financial system should have an impact on their lives. We do a lot of research. We partner with a lot of the organizations here. So to my right is Deputy Governor Lobna Halal who started her career in banking and investment banking. In 2004 she joined the Central Bank of Egypt to develop and execute a full fledged two-phased banking sector reform program. And in November 2011 she was appointed Deputy Governor responsible for monetary stability and was the first female to assume this position in history of the Central Bank of Egypt. In 2016 she led an effort to enact a program of comprehensive fiscal and monetary reforms to put the Egyptian economy on a stable path to growth. Among many other accomplishments, and I had a hard time summarizing her many accomplishments, she represents the Central Bank of Egypt in its capacity as Chair of the Board for the Alliance for Financial Inclusion. Sophie Maddens, who's just two steps down, is the head of the Regulatory and Market and Environment Division of the International Telecommunications Union. Sophie's worked as a regulatory and policy expert in the telecommunications and ICT sector in many international environments, including Asia, the Middle East, the Americas, Europe, and Africa, which is pretty much everywhere, but Antarctic. Her scope of expertise is particularly focused on the information economy, including internet policy and governance, e-commerce, privacy, cybercrime, and cybersecurity. Ajay Shah, who's two steps down, is a professor of economics at the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy in New Delhi, where he co-leads the macro finance group. He's held prior positions at the Center for Monitoring Indian Economy, the Indira Gandhi Institute for Development Research, and the Indian Ministry of Finance. He's engaged in academic and policy research in the fields of Indian economic growth, open economy, macroeconomics, public finance, financial economics, and pensions. And last but not least is Michael Wiegand, who's at the far end of the table. Michael's the director of the Financial Services for the Poor Initiative at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, leading the foundation's efforts to make high quality financial services available to poor people throughout the developing world. Before joining the foundation in 2016, Michael spent 10 years with Standard Chartered Bank, holding senior level positions both globally and in the Southern Africa region. And prior to joining Standard Chartered, Michael consulted to financial institutions in the U.S., Australia, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East with McKinsey. So a big welcome to all my panelists. So we're going to start out with a fairly broad question, and I'd like to start with Lomna. Has it been enough to have only an implicit financial inclusion mandate embedded in the core mandates of central banks, or should inclusion be an explicit mandate? And beyond that, now that access to accounts is nearing universality in some markets, not all markets, how do we think about what comes next in terms of financial inclusion policy? What might be some of our priorities for financial inclusion 2.0? Good morning, and I'd like to thank the organizers for inviting me to this event. The title of the topic is quite intriguing, Central Future, Central Banks of the Futures. I think a few of us at the Central Bank community are trying to phrase it this way. We go about our daily work, and maybe work towards the Central Bank of the Future, but it has never been brought up as a logo. So I thank the organizers and the research center here for putting this in this perspective. I think when it comes to financial inclusion, this topic, especially for developing countries, has been coming up lately very much on the agenda of countries, not just central banks. And it has not been expressed as an explicit mandate for central banks in developing countries. But I think many of the governments, and I talk about Egypt specifically, have seen in the central banks the right institution where they can lodge this mandate. But having said that, it cannot be done without a collaboration at a national level. We have heard the question today whether it requires fiscal decisions. Yes, it will require fiscal decisions. It has to be a collaborative effort, but it is important that there should be one entity, one court, that is in charge of putting the agenda, the priorities, and then aligning all of the other stakeholders around this agenda. Why should it be lodged at central banks in general or regulators if it's not specifically central bank? Because I think the dual mandate that most of the central banks have now, which is monetary stability and financial stability, are the same sides of the coin when it comes to financial inclusion. When I talk about financial inclusion, especially in developing countries, we're talking about countries that have a large informal sector. This informal sector is lost opportunities for the fiscal. It is also a social and political source of unrest. And only through financial inclusion will we be able to address this informal sector and bringing it into the formal sector. So it is quite important for developing countries specifically. For all countries, it's important that financial stability in terms of availing financial services through diversified financial institutions doesn't have to be the banks only, as we see in what is emerging now. But they have, in one way or the other, be formal, regulated in a way. It doesn't have to be the same set of regulations. But it can be a tiered regulation atmosphere, be it the FinTechs, be it the Telecos. And that brings me back again to the issue of cooperation between different entities as well. Even from a monetary stability point of view, I mean, when I have a large informal sector and a large informal economy, my transmission mechanism and my monetary policy tools are ineffective. Or they are slow because whatever I do with the traditional tools of interest rate movements will not resonate, the transmission mechanism will not be effective if I have a large informal economy. So it is, again, in the interest of central banks, if they want to have fulfilled their mandate of price stability is that they have a proper operating financial sector with a large financial inclusion ratio and active ratio, not just the dormant financial inclusion landscape. So all of this add to it, for example, financial inclusion, as you rightly said, we have to define what we're talking about, is also includes financial education, financial literacy, financial health, as we've heard today. And this all is important for a central bank when fulfilling its basic two mandates of financial stability and monetary stability. So they all come in play. And I think at one point in time, they might become an explicit mandate for central banks. But even now, with this implicit and in a cooperative and collaborative effort at the level of the whole country, we will be able to get there. Thank you, Omna. A lot of interesting food for thought in that, actually. Michael, could you maybe speak to the same question? Right. Yeah, across the developing world, financial inclusion is an explicit mandate of many central banks. And even beyond that, countries where more than the majority of citizens are excluded from the formal financial system, financial inclusion is a top political priority. And more often than not, the central bank or financial regulator is the owner of the financial inclusion strategy. So in most of the countries in which we work, it's not even a question of whether it's part of the mandate. I think Governor Halal, Deputy Governor Halal, I think mentioned the close linkages between stability. I think formalizing the economy also brings tremendous liquidity into the system, which can aid stability. And she mentioned the transmission of monetary policy. In terms of what are the next steps, I think there's a real proximate issue around credit. And what's the role in central banks in promoting credit and making sure that credit reaches all sectors of the economy. And again, already, and for many years, some central banks are very active and take a very interventionist role in ensuring that a wider set of the economy is reached through credit. Ultimately, we sort of think about it as the financial regulatory system is there to make sure that the financial system works. We want to make sure that the financial system works for everybody. Yeah, that's nice. Actually, that's a nice way of framing it. OK, I think I'm going to move on, but I make a circle back to some of the points raised on this because we have a lot to get through. So I'd like to put this question to Ajay and to Michael. So universal financial access requires a lot of infrastructure, actually, like payment and information systems, so credit to your point, Michael. ID, KYC utilities, ICT, and telecommunication systems. And it requires that these infrastructures are efficient, effective, open, which they're not always, and adaptive. So how should the central bank, well, should the central bank of the future be providers? Should they be regulators of this infrastructure? Or should it be separate? And at the very least, should they have a mandate to proactively intervene in such areas to achieve a financial inclusion mandate? And Ajay, I'd like to start with you on this because, obviously, India has been very forward-looking in building public good infrastructure, and I know you have a lot of thoughts on this. So in India, the government has played a leadership role in a great deal of the infrastructure. There is a giant biometric authentication system that is called ADHAR. There is a payments infrastructure organization that is called the NPCI. And there are many engineering standards that are drafted by the government. And pushed into the economy using state coercion. And this has yielded some gains. And there's no question that there has been progress made through these channels. At the same time, I'm a bit nervous about this state-led approach. We should be more cautious about the role of the government. And I would like to say this in a couple of different ways. The first is that I think all of us in this room, we are in the field of financial inclusion. And we appreciate that financial inclusion is hard. There are no simple recipes. And I think that the methods and the techniques that will work in a given locale will not work in another. We need a great deal of innovation and exploration to figure out what's going to work. There is the ever-present danger in the state-led approach that some central planners in the government will choose, some business model will choose, some standard will choose some framework and push it into the economy. And that may or may not be the right one. These high-modernist experiments have often worked out poorly. So I think the essence of how we will get there is a vibrant market, is competition, is innovation, is experimentation. And we will end up with many different solutions, particularly in a country like India, which is a large country, but also an extremely diverse country. The richest parts of India divided by the income and prosperity in the richest parts of India, divided by the income of prosperity in the poorest parts of India, is the same ratio as the richest parts of Latin America, divided by the poorest parts of Africa. So India is very diverse. And that emphasizes the need to find many different solutions that are useful in different parts of the system. And I'm very optimistic about the role of technology and business model innovation that technology makes possible. But that's not consistent with the state-led model. It is also not consistent with a domination of banks and banking. And I think that too often in India, the levers of policy are controlled by the central bank, which tends to look at the world from a banking point of view. And I very often get the feeling that central bank officials and bank employees would like for this entire technology revolution to turn into some technology vendors who will serve the banks, but not really cannibalize the banks, not really threaten the revenue streams of the banks, not compete with banks. And I think that that's selling ourselves too short. I think that the scale of innovation that is required to be in this needs to be a greater thing than just being vendors to banks. So I think that in India, we've got too much central control. We've got too much of business models that are controlled by the government. And that generates regulatory risk because the government can support your business model today. It can change its mind tomorrow. And there is a lack of due process. There is no notice and comment. The democratic legitimacy of the regulatory process is not there. So things change suddenly. For instance, two weeks ago, the Reserve Bank of India decided that fintechs shall be cut off from credit bureaus. So too bad. If you are a fintech that was going to use data from a credit bureau, you're just in a lot of trouble because you're told that you can't use a credit bureau. So I could go on on these difficulties, but this is my quick idea that I think we've got a lot of central planning and state control in a field that I think would thrive more as a self-organizing system, as engineers and entrepreneurs inventing solutions to local problems. That is super provocative in a good way. And I want to just, for a moment, sort of capture a question that I'd like to explore as a bit of a surprise for all of you. There is this tension between control and innovation. And we've seen, particularly in markets where banks have a pretty tight hold through the central bank on what innovation is allowed to happen, that it's slower. So if I compare Kenya with Nigeria, we've had a very different pathway towards financial inclusion. And that's not to say one is right and the other is not, but it's a trade-off and a tension. And it kind of often comes down to a governance question. Who's in charge of this? And how do we come together and agree? And it's complicated because in a market like Kenya, huge amounts of the payment systems are going through mobile network operators and yet payment systems controlled by banks. And it creates a tension. And I think that's a really interesting tension for us to explore. So I want to just flag that maybe we'll come back to this and get your thoughts collectively on it. But I wanted to actually put the same question to you, Michael, on infrastructure and how those help the market, but also this question of what's the role of the central bank of the future in that infrastructure? So I don't think there's any question that some of these platforms have huge impact in driving financial inclusion. So for example, basic KYC, traditionally, where you had to gather documents and make photocopies and move those around, there are a lot of estimates. But generally, between $15 and $25 to open up a bank account just for the KYC process. With Aadhar in India, again, all that information gathering was done by the government for the purpose of setting up the national ID, banks and financial service providers, you come, you give your Aadhar number, you give your fingerprints, and immediately your KYC. And so the estimates is it's brought it down from $15 to $0.06. So now a vast majority of Indians who would never have been profitable if you had to spend $16 to $20 just to get them on boarded, now you can serve them profitably. So I think these platforms are tremendously valuable. There's a question as to left to their own devices, would the private sector have created such a system? And I think they're natural monopolies, right? Many of them, payment systems, some of these ID systems, if you want them to be ubiquitous. And so at a minimum, I think they need to be regulated, right? So that if they are owned and operated by the private sector, Audrey mentioned, and PCI, who's the payments company of India, it's a private, it's an independent company, but it's heavily regulated. And there's a lot of oversight by the Reserve Bank of India. And so I think that's the balance.  Technology is moving incredibly fast. The whole ID space, protecting people's privacy, protecting security will be a real challenge. These are honeypots I think as Jennifer used for criminals, but also for the level in governments. And so striking the balance where people are protected, both from a security and privacy perspective, is gonna require constant innovation. And central banks may not be in best position to be at the cutting edge of innovation. And so I think it's a real tension, but we can't get away from the fact that these platforms can be hugely valuable. Okay, so building on that, recognizing that governance of a system that we're even kind of struggling to define what the boundaries are, because it's changing so fast. So how that gets overseen and governed, is still a pretty open question in a lot of markets. So what I'd like to do is then turn this to, with a twist, to first Sophie Madden's and then to Deputy Governor Hall, about a culture of collaborative regulation for digital transformation. So how do we start thinking about, say, telco regulators working more closely with financial sector regulators, and making this a more joined up system? How do we have regulators talking to the industry that's producing these services, and really understanding each other in terms of both the opportunities that Michael spoke to, but some of the risks that Ajay spoke to. And what other agencies are important in this equation? So we've got consumer protection, we've got data protection, we've got competition issues. So how do we effectively collaborate across these different regulatory mandates, or in the case of some countries, regulatory gaps, to be honest? So Sophie, maybe you could take this question first, and then Logan, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you very much. And I'm kind of the ugly duckling in the room. I feel like the odd one out, and yet I'm not the odd one out, because the message really is about collaboration, and it's become more and more part and parcel of the narrative. It's about collaboration, it's about digital transformation, digital financial inclusion without the secure, trusted, reliable infrastructure leads to no financial inclusion, because you need that secure, trusted infrastructure. And I really want to call out to the Gates Foundation and to the World Bank, we're working together on a project, the Financial Inclusion Global Initiative, where we have working groups on security, trust and infrastructure, privacy data protection, but also on national implementation in three countries, Mexico, China and Egypt. And both partners have really recognized that the ICT component, leveraging ICTs to achieve financial inclusion is core to our mission. And we've come a long way. You say, how do we go about collaboration? Well, collaboration is actually already there, and I don't know how many of you know ITU, the International Telecommunication Union. We're a specialized agency of the UN, and we're unique in one particular sense, and that our membership, we're membership driven, and our membership includes the private sector, includes academia. And some of you might have participated in some of the work of ITU, in particular our T sector, so our standardization sector, our radio communication sector, our development sector, but our standardization sector has focus groups on digital financial services, where many of you may have participated. We have a focus group on DLT. So we're looking at the technology. In the development sector in 2016 in Egypt, we brought together financial and telecoms regulators in the Global Dialogue for Digital Financial Inclusion, where we came up with some guidelines, some core principles for that collaboration, and recognized some of the, identified some of the issues, where there is the need for synergy, the need for collaboration. Just as a funny anecdote, in some of the countries where we've been on mission, there are silos and there are turf battles. And people, we come into the room and people say, what are you doing here? We're the central bank. We're dealing with payment systems.  When the mobile network goes down and the money goes poof, who are they gonna come to? So consumer protection, quality of service, interconnection, interoperability, these are issues that the telecoms regulators are working with, but as Lobno was saying, there needs to be that collaboration because there's payment aspects. Just one more point on the collaboration. People do mention the example of Kenya. I love the example of Kenya because we need to balance flexibility with stability, innovation with investment incentives. And Kenya they saw, SafariCom was looking for new business models. They were looking, how can I up my game? How can I bring more revenue for me? Because at the end of the day, they're doing business. There were champions in government, visionaries, who brought together the central bank and SafariCom and the telecoms ministry and the telecoms regulator. And they said, this is important because it will allow our diaspora and our rural communities to be brought into the digital economy. Let them give it a try. Let's be light touch regulation. Let them give it a try. We'll see afterwards if and how we need to regulate it. And it made a huge difference, not just in Kenya, but around the world. So collaboration is there. We have these pockets of collaboration. For that, we need to sit together. We need to learn from each other. We need to exchange experiences. Maybe we need to define principles of collaboration and formal, I'm a lawyer. So I always think there needs to be the legal mandate. There needs to be the basis to go back to that because we need the human infrastructure, the technical infrastructure and the governance infrastructure together. And together we will succeed. Well, that was very inspiring. How about this from the central bank point of view? I'll just be very frank. It's not an easier way to navigate. It's quite challenging. And if you allow me, I'll just fall back on what we did in Egypt because there are lessons to be learned and things that we can do better also in the future. We have a national payment council that is headed by the president. So it has a lot of political authority and will. And it brings everybody around the table on one agreed on agenda. So we have all the ministries or the regulators and the central bank of Egypt. So again, being at the forefront is the secretary of the council. So we drive the agenda, we put the agenda and we have the collaborative effort between all the entities. So this is a very important tool so that you can get things moving. Having said that, it's still difficult because again, some people might like to work in silos. Some people feel that this is my area. I don't want to relinquish it but I think with the importance of financial inclusion and trickling down of economic growth to the masses, you get the buy-in of others, of the other entities because it is a highly political and economic target so everybody has to align. But we still have to broker a lot in that. The idea is I think that we have to, this is at the national level. Now when we come to talk to regulators among themselves, we were discussing this yesterday, there is a difference between regulating maybe the entities and licensing them and regulating the activity. There could be an activity that is cross several regulators and that's here where you need to coordinate together. So we have done this in Egypt, especially with the teleco operators because we have a large mobile wallet portfolio and so we try to regulate the activity. If you are doing anything related to payments, then the central bank has to come in and put all the criteria. The AML has to be there also involved so that they put the criteria for the KYC and everything and the teleco also have to make sure that it is a playing field for everybody. And it was successful and maybe one of the lessons learned is that when you do it on a very macro level, things might just not happen but when you sometimes use use cases, you come in with a specific case that you want to bring and this is something that is really very close to my heart and relates yesterday to what Mary was saying is the gender, the woman issue. So one we have an MOU with the telecom regulator and the first thing we brought to the table was we want to have a tiered KYC for mobile wallets. This is placed in the interest of both entities and the AML came in and we were able to do that. And then when we tried to apply this for women specifically because they have their challenges when it comes to the KYC which was a very clear case for women which was the state was paying alimony to a lot of the divorced women. So we put the structure, the product so that these payments could be done through their mobile wallets, regulated, lightly regulated and KYC because the amounts are small and these women have their own particular circumstances. And the product came out and it's successful. This encourages us to go to the next project and the other one and then all the stakeholders feel that they are part of the success story and so they continue to collaborate with each other, with each other. So you have to define the formula and to share the success and make it the success story of each and every entity. It's not just one so you can make sure that you don't have people saying, no, you're coming, you're stepping on my toe or you're taking off my responsibilities. So that was what we did in Egypt and so far it's going well and I think we're doing it with other regulators. We have, for example, now our sandbox when it comes to FinTech and the first cohort there is for EQIC but this meant that we had to have an MOU and a collaborative effort with the Banking Regulator which is the central bank, the non-banking regulator which is a different entity, the AML and the NTRA. They held also now as we, the sandbox is with the central bank of Egypt but through this MOU I'm able to get all the other also regulators so that we can bring something to the market together. Okay, thanks very much. I think Sophie, you wanted to come back in on that. Yes, thank you very much and I really think the project in Egypt with the women having access to the subsidies or to the payments through the mobile wallet, I'm aware that there's a collaboration with one of your mobile operators but one of the questions I want to put here, I think when I say finally we're talking about collaboration, finally we're hearing about digital first, I think we're also hearing about financial inclusion first but I'm wearing here the SDGs, the SDG pin. It's eradicating poverty, it's gender, it's education. So I think together we, digital financial inclusion for what, we can make people's lives better and I think when we talk about collaboration we really have to think even further out of the box. We have to stretch it even further. It's not just bringing mobile wallets to women but it's teaching them digital skills and I know in Egypt you do a tremendous amount of work in digital skills awareness building and also let's not forget one group of people, persons with disabilities. We had the keynote on gender yesterday. There are billions of people in the world with disabilities. Please let's not forget them in our financial inclusion work and in our digital skills campaigns because if life is tough for women, for youth, it's even tougher for people with disabilities. So we really need to keep them in our thinking and at the top of our thinking as well. But just to come back to the point, holistic collaboration, that digital financial inclusion for what? I think that brings us out of the box even more. Okay, so I wanna move us to a new topic but just to maybe summarize some of the points on this one because I think they're useful. So it's quite clear that there's a balancing act between control and making sure things don't run amok and innovation and it's pretty hard to get that right but that collaboration and talking to each other is a pretty important part of that. I think what you were saying, Lovna, about actually being clear about what you're trying to solve for upfront is really useful to bringing those pieces together but actually I think what Sophie just said beyond that is thinking about well, what's the outcome we're trying to achieve? So what will this do for people? And I think that's a really interesting way of tying it together. But let's move on to a new topic which is how does what we have need to change? So central banks are already pretty challenged to implement balanced risk-based approaches to traditional banking models which are the foundation of global financial regulation and supervision. And while these new business models and technologies hold pretty major potential for inclusion, they also pose serious challenges to traditional methods of regulation and supervision. And that suggests that pretty radical changes are required to get to the central bank of the future. So I'd like Deputy Governor Halal Ajay and Sophie to speak to what shift in this landscape do you think is most important and how do we need to think about placing the regulatory perimeter for the central bank of the future to be effective in balancing both those opportunities and the risks? So perhaps we could start with you Ajay because you haven't spoken for a while. I think we should see this question in the context of the larger puzzle of the emergence of state capacity. For many people in this room, you take a reasonably capable United States government for granted. When the United States government chooses to build a new organization or a new agency, it pretty much gets done and by and large, it works reasonably well. I come from the opposite corner of the world where every day there is the battle of state capacity that the Indian state is overwhelmed, is trying many things and is challenged in doing most of them. So from a state capacity perspective, it seems to me that the way to get to capability in a central bank would be to have a more narrow mandate and to have more clear accountability. So I think that the title of this conference of Future of Central Bank as many others have emphasized is actually a larger thing. It's about financial economic policy which could have an agency landscape of many, many organizations and not necessarily the central bank. But my policy instinct is that it is better to have more narrow organizations with more clear accountability, to have measures of accountability around each organization. Sprawling mandates are more troublesome in terms of getting performance. If I'm supposed to do many things and I'm not particularly measured for many components of them, then I'm more likely to be able to claim that I could not do X because I was pursuing Y. And it helps if Y is not particularly well measured. So I really appreciated the morning points about measurement and yes, we should go there. But I would also appeal to an old economics idea of the assignment principle. If you have one instrument, you have to dedicate it to one objective. It's not confused things by having complicated organizations with many objectives. In all probability, those organizations will do the things that none of us consider useful. Finally, bureaucracies pursue their own objectives and they're not going to care about the things that we consider valuable. Okay, so I might come back to you on this because I think very interesting what you say, but then I think there's a question of how you connect. So maybe we'll let you come back at the end, but I'd like to hear from you, Loebna, about how you think about shifts that need to get us to what the central bank of the future looks like, but also where you draw the lines in that perimeter. I just would like to comment on what has been said by Ajay. I believe when you have such a topic like financial inclusion that we have seen and throughout the discussion, it is so multi-pronged and multi-faceted that having these narrow mandates given to organizations, I think we will end up with more regulatory things falling between the cracks than a more comprehensive thing. Having said that, I feel that still, whenever you enlarge the mandate of any institution, be it the central bank, be it anything, there has to be accountability. So you have to bring in the idea of KPIs, measures that against which your performance is measured. And within the organization itself, you have to have dedicated teams with a very clear mandate but that can coordinate among themselves and also with the other stakeholders outside the institution. So I'm not personally for the idea of having it more specialized. I think there has to be one entity regardless what it is that sets the agenda, that puts the framework and is responsible for some of the deliverables within coordination with other entities. Where to draw the lines? I think topic is so vibrant. I mean, every day we are coming with new ideas.  Today, we are what was like not too far away, three or four years from FinDex 2014 to 2017. Now we find there is a jump, but we are not happy. Everybody's saying, what about financial, what about dormant account? What about the gender gap? What about the gap between, what about the quality of the services? Did it do the right impact? Did it do, is it really increasing and helping in the financial helps of citizens? Is it doing the poor any good? Or are the poor getting even much more leveraged or endangered? So I mean, it is always coming with new challenges and new things. So the topic itself is increasing. What we only need to do is really focus on what we want to achieve. So it hasn't become just financial inclusion. I think what we are doing now, and which is very important, especially for developing countries that are just going after the financial inclusion in terms of accounts, that they now bring into the equation the idea of impact, the idea of financial health, the idea of what Sufi said, what is it that we are really targeting now? And this has to be done in a collaborative effort, but there has to be one entity regardless what it is, which entity it is that can set the agenda and raise the alarms. This is here we're not going right. And also allocate the resources because especially in developing countries, we don't have endless resources, be it human capital, be it financial resources. So we need to allocate what is, how can I use this resource to get the most important impact? Or do I need to work on the infrastructure now, or do I need to work on specific use cases because I need to address certain social and economic problems? So it is quite vibrant and so I'm actually hearing agreement between you guys on the need for maybe clarity, but then there's maybe a difference in terms of narrowness and how that comes together and we'll come back to you on that, or a broader scope. Before we move on, we come back to you, Ajay. I'd like to hear from Sufi and her view on this. So I think I agree with both. At the end of the day, it's government that needs to set policy and vision and needs to determine how it will allocate its resources. I think coming to Ajay's point, we need entities that are fit for purpose. So you need to decide on the purpose, what is the mandate and it can be a larger mandate or a more restricted mandate, but that needs to be clear. And then you need, I come back to it, the human infrastructure, so you need the capacity. It makes no sense. In the telecoms field, we saw many, many countries that set up regulators because that's what the donor agencies told them to do. They didn't give them training. They didn't give them the financial resources. They didn't give them the structural functional or financial independence, but they gave them a whole washed list of things to do. These poor people were not able to do it because they didn't have the tools that had it. You need the technical infrastructure, so you need the investors, the innovators that come and bring the technical solutions for what you're trying to achieve. And you need the governance infrastructure, which are the rules, the procedures, the processes, including the processes for collaboration because none of us are super human. So even if you have a large mandate that comes to the restriction in resources or indeed the technical capacity, and that's where you need collaborative mechanisms. And let's not call it regulation and let's not call it obligation, but just the simple collaborative regulatory mechanisms that is a process that is enshrined in certain administers of rules so that you can get the help that you need. Ashim, do you like to come back on this point at all? We should learn to walk before we can run. And therefore it is better to start out with an agency, an organization, which has given a smaller problem and get to high levels of capability and then muddy the waters as you go along. So we should think of the sequencing question. It's always important to start with something, make it work, and then potentially we could make it more complicated. And I will go back to the assignment problem that if you wish to put two objectives on an agency, you will need to give the agency two instruments and we'll need to construct the measurement systems to hold it accountable. So you are absolutely right that the boundaries are the design decision of each country and in each context and there is no one answer. But I think that we will all agree in a principal agent problem, if there is a contractor who's fumbling on doing one problem, would you give him two problems? So in that principal agent problem between parliament and each of these agencies, we should start small, develop high capability and then escalate it. Okay, I'm gonna now bring Michael into this conversation but shift gears a little bit. So we've been talking about this in a national sense up till now really. But data and financial services now move across borders very easily, sometimes without regulators even really having much of a grip of what's going on. And so the question that I'd like to maybe start with Michael on and then move back this way is is there a risk that central banks will actually lose their relevance as financial sector regulators and supervisors as we think of a Libra coming on board? Or and then how do central banks need to think differently about regional and global regulatory frameworks and how do these need to evolve from where they are today? So I think there is a risk of irrelevance and there's in a very small scale already emerging these sort of alternative financial systems that are outside the regulatory regime. So I think one answer is that central banks need to reassert their sovereignty over financial systems, right? So for example, a requirement that any deposit account or store value account has to have a geographic domicile and therefore the regulator in that area governs that product and you can have rules about how a system is operated relevant in one country with domiciled and another and have regulations. So I think there are ways that central banks can reassert their sovereignty and I think it's important that they do. In terms of the question around cross-border, I don't think there's any doubt and had a conversation this morning with the governor on cross-border payments. Our existing cross-border payment system is antiquated, outrageously expensive and that's what's giving rise to some of these alternatives. So I think there's work that needs to be done by regulators to modernize the cross-border payment system. There's already a lot of regional efforts. We provide some financial support to the West Africa Economic and Monetary Union which is a collection of West African countries that already have a shared currency, a single central bank and payment infrastructure that works across borders. That's a bit easier because they do have a common currency but there's several other regional efforts. The static countries, the Southern African Development Council already has infrastructure that enables wholesale cross-border payments, not necessarily cross-currency but they're looking to expand and there's many other efforts to bring down the costs of cross-border payments. So I think that level of collaboration is coming and it's a new role for central banks both in terms of payment and also currency conversion directly between currencies. The former governor of Kenya was active in leading some efforts across East Africa to think about how to enable direct currency conversion between East African countries. There's a lot of trade in these regional areas and the payment and monetary systems have to catch up. And finally you talked about standards, I think certainly the global standards setting bodies are and will continue to need to modernize and as in parallel to national regulators thinking about these new systems, the standard setting bodies will have to come along with that. Sophie, would you like to tackle that question? When I look at the cross-border payments, again I come up with in my mind, I think of the ICT related issues or the ICT telecoms related issues, pure infrastructure related issues, roaming rates, we all know that there's international mobile, mobile roaming. So when you use your mobile phone in another country, so these roaming rates are of importance but then we're coming to the crunch issues, ID, privacy, data protection. And there are four, I think it is very important, especially for regulators or central banks from developing countries to be part of the discussions. And there are four around the world, I think of all the initiatives, the Gates Foundation, they're doing what the World Bank is doing, what ITU is doing, what AFI is doing. Internet governance issues that are even looking at privacy data protection, you have the IGF, the GAC. We had our global dialogue on digital financial inclusion again where we brought people together because if you're not part of the discussion, discussions will happen and decisions will be made and it may not be made in the best of your interests, so be involved in those discussions. And that I think is a message I want people to come away with. Ajay, I'd like you to respond to this question and particularly in the context of India sort of exporting a lot of ideas now. So how do we think about not just cross-border but sort of cross-border flow of data, cross-border flow of ideas, how do we think about how these regulatory frameworks both at the country level, regional level but also the global level, how do they need to shift to accommodate this very radical transformation in the financial sector? I think two things, if I may now start doing some dreaming for 50 years, yes, that's a nice end game of this session. I think there are two things going on. The first is we should see the free trade problem in data as analogous to the free trade problem that we've known for 200 years, that there will always be the short-term political economy of trying to do some protectionism of various kinds of nativism and nationalism that will come in the way and that we will always be better with more open, more free interconnections between individuals and firms that cut across borders. So I see the present difficulties around data as just being the convoys all over again. We've been through this movie over and over for hundreds of years and this is just the latest skirmish of a long tradition of battles around free trade. And in that sense, I think that we need to think about the institutional arrangements that were used by the world in the past to overcome problems of free trade, whether it was the GATT or the WTO or the European Union. I think we have to ask ourselves, what are the cross-national frameworks that will give us a more benevolent approach to this because it can collapse into nativism very easily? As we're seeing this all over the world, it is very easy for this to go wrong. So I think this would be one part of my big thinking that how do we make the world safe for the new world of data? Let's recognize that this is a new milestone in the history of mankind. We kind of went through free trade in agriculture, free trade in goods and a certain kind of free trade in services. But in the data economy, how are we going to rethink free trade and how are we going to underpin it in the legal foundations of agreements and coalitions of countries that will come together jointly to make those agreements, create passporting arrangements. I think we're at the beginning of that story. And my second 50 years idea, this is a provocative thing that I think we should all start thinking about. At present in the world, we have perhaps 150 currency. And 50 years from now, do we really need 150 currencies? Is a currency like a national airline? Is a currency like a national stock exchange? Is it really feasible and efficient in this world of the efficient ability for residents everywhere to use the US dollar or to use a Euro or to use Bitcoin? Is it feasible for sub-scale currencies? And then the kind of arrangements you described are so important. This is the most important puzzle that we're gonna need to figure out of how do groups of countries come together? How do we arrive at agreements around sharing the senior arts revenue? How do we protect ourselves from yanking access between countries? And I wish to hold for you a great example of a success story in global cooperation. Did you know India and Pakistan through the worst of times have protected water sharing treaties on the industrial. So the industrial starts out in India and goes into Pakistan. And through the worst of times, the treaties have held. So I think that it is possible to create the cross-country legal frameworks for cooperation and collaboration in something as sensitive as water. And it can be done for something as sensitive as currencies. And I think it behooves all of us to start working towards that on the 50 year horizon that Adrian asked us to think about. Yeah, I think that's a really great comment. My only question is whether 50 years is the right time horizon. This is all happening a lot faster than that. So maybe we need to think in a shorter time horizon. But great question. Yeah. Because I think it's also very important. I think we also, especially when it comes to financial inclusion, we need to raise this divide between developed countries and developing countries. I think we are faced, both of us with the same threats, the same disruption. And I would say even at the same level. So I hope that also in the next 50 years, we don't have this division between developing and developed countries in this topic specifically. I love that comment. And that takes me to my next question, which I'd like to direct to you, but then also to Michael Wiegen and it's sort of a two part question.  And I think the only perhaps differentiating factor to your point between developed market, central banks for lack of a better word and emerging market, central banks is resource, both in terms of capability and human resource, but also just number of people, technology tools, people have at their disposal. And so what I'd like to hear from you on is what you see in terms of the main gaps between central banks and emerging markets today. And what needs to happen to fill that gap to get us to the central bank of the future in terms of building that capacity. Because the challenges you're right are all the same. So how do we get everybody sort of in the same conversation? And then I'd like to ask Michael to specifically sort of reflect on whether there's a role for the development community and philanthropic capital to help in some of that. Because I would posit that, you know, we love throwing attention and money at shiny new objects and business models, but there's not a lot of attention always put to the regulatory side of things and the rails that sort of make sure those business models don't kind of drive us off the road. So maybe you could respond first, Lumna, and then I'll ask Michael to jump in. As I said, I mean, central banks, emerging markets and developing markets, we have a challenge with our resources, be it human resources or capital, but we have also a very huge opportunity which is that our populations are always young. We have a high percentage of a young population and young population means more agility, more they have the tools of this era that maybe we as older people do not have. So I think if we just focus on investing in those young, whether it be at the central banks or in other entities, but the human capital is important and we have a very good chance of developing this human capital. And there is some responsibility on the countries themselves because we find a lot of light of human capital from the developing countries to the developed countries. It should be the other way around or at least we can maintain our young people that are being well-trained, well-educated in developed countries and then they don't come back. So we need to work on that because this is the capital that we have. In terms of infrastructure, I think this is again something that we need maybe some of the countries would need capital, but I personally, I always believe it's the transfer of knowledge and know how that is important. But specifically for this topic, financial inclusion going forward, some of this transfer of knowledge is even should happen happening between developing countries themselves because it has been a focus area for many countries. And that's for example why the AFI Alliance is successful. This is a member-driven alliance. It is focused on developing countries and there has been so much knowledge sharing between us as regulators that we build now on. We have case studies and so on. So I would focus on the human. Money can come. We have the international donors, we have the IIFs and also I would say that this is a business opportunity. It will draw money from the private pockets, not just donors or international organizations. It is a thriving business that will make money for everybody. So the private sector has to be also welcome and we've already seen them coming. Michael, would you like to? Yeah, I think there's a huge role and a huge need for new technology. Let me just step back a minute. What's the risk if central banks get this wrong? There's three ways that they can frankly destroy financial inclusion. Forget about promoting it. One is if they block innovation. The second is if they fail to manage and mitigate risks and things blow up and people lose faith in these systems. But the third is that they regulate these systems in a traditional manual way that destroys the economics. It's very, very difficult to serve the poor at a profit. You really need to get your marginal costs down very close to zero. And if you have to invest millions of dollars in supervision, reporting and so forth, it'll destroy the economics of these systems. And so central banks need to balance letting in innovation, mitigating the risk, but doing it in a way that doesn't destroy the economics. And I think technology is a solution. So I think what's called reg tech, soup tech, more standardized methods to gather and analyze data. There's huge opportunities. As you start to have standardized payment systems, now you have the ability to analyze that data to identify fraud. How do consumers report misdeeds by providers and how do you respond to that? Because again, think about in a developing world context where you're going from 20% financial inclusion to 80%. You have four times as many consumers and a much wider range of financial service providers that you need to now supervise and protect. You can't use the old traditional way. So I think technology is a huge importance. Your question of is there a role for philanthropic organizations, for development organizations, I think absolutely. It would be a huge mistake for every country to invent their own technology and their own approach. I think they're absolutely, we have to be learning from each other. If you want to attract private sector companies, it'll bring the latest technology. They need to have scales of some sort of standardization of the tools for regulators as required. And it's a really new area. So for the students out there, if you want to go out and start businesses, reg tech and soup tech, I think is a huge opportunity and a huge need. I actually really like both of your responses because they go together, right? So technology can help make things more efficient and help banks operate better, but you need the human capital to run the technology. And I think one of the things that's so fascinating about India, for me, you talked about sort of brain drain and how you make sure that that stays in your country. India is in fact a brilliant case in point. A lot of that was driven by super smart engineers and economists who train somewhere else came back. And you've got this hotbed of amazing talent sitting in Bangalore, Chennai and other places. And so I think there is a real imperative for governments to think about how they mobilize some of that talent and use that to sort of leverage the technology. So I think really great points. I want to just give two minutes each to Sophia and Ajay in case they want to jump in on that or any other question. And then I'd really like to open it up for questions from the audience. So I don't know if you have anything you'd like to add. So Michael, what you said is so interesting and I think it's bang on. What we have found is that in India there is a large number of regulators, there are many different regulators. And in my organization, we've been very intimately involved with regulatory processes. So we work on building state capacity by improving processes. We've been dreaming and we have begun building open source systems that would do the internal processes of these regulators and that would intermediate the information flows between the regulators and the private firms out there with exactly the sorts of things that you had in mind. And we think of it as a twin objective. The first is to short circuit the effort and the delay required for each organization to build its own capability. You know, if somebody's worked hard on it and if you can stand on the shoulders of the developmental work that has been done somewhere else, all the better. And the second is to move the interface between the regulator and firms to all electronic as much as possible.  And for the rest, the world of business is extremely low friction. So we've actually begun the process of building open source regulatory process software. I don't know which buzzword it fits under. Well, we can end that one. Sophie. Yeah, I think that the human infrastructure is key. And I like what you say about working on the processes. I think for telecoms regulators as well in the era of digital transformation, there is a need to revisit some of the governance processes and procedures, dispute resolution, sanction enforcement, licensing. I mean, our fintech tech companies when you use drones, when you use blockchain, how do you license them? So it's licensing procedures you really need to open your mind. And I also salute India in terms of digital financial services. We have actually provided training on DFS bringing in the results of our focus groups to people across the administration. So it wasn't just the telecom regulator as it was working with the telecom regulator and others in civil servants in the administration to tell them here's what digital financial services are. So it's that openness, bringing those pockets of expertise and trying to raise it across collaboration, across administration because that will make collaboration easier. Perfect, okay. So we've got about 20 minutes left, I think. So we'd like to open it up for questions from the audience. Can we get a microphone up there? Up in the back corner there. Leonardo Gamba Corta, Bank for International Settlements. First of all, I would like to thank the panelists for your discussion was very interesting. And I want to make a point about coordination and in particular, international coordination because in the discussion it was clear that we are in a situation in which there are now three different objectives that is, for example, if we think about the financial side, the financial stability, competition, but then we have another objective that is data privacy. So Professor Shah said that we need, following the Timberger rule, we need to have, for every objective, we need to have just a tool to apply this tool. So this means that we need coordination at the national level between the prudential authorities, competition authority and data privacy authority. So it's already a lot of coordination at the domestic level. But then there was another element that was very interesting, is that there is, in terms of welfare maximization at the country level, a different society preference across countries. So for example, an advanced economy could weight more data privacy while an emerging market economy with more need for financial inclusion could weight less data privacy. So there is a question here about a minimum standard for data privacy, data sharing and so on. So the question is, do we need another standard setting body for the data, for the sharing of the data at the international level? Great question. Who would like to try that one out? The whole area of data, data privacy, both facilitating data, because there's people who say the poor in developing world don't have primarily a privacy problem, they have an invisibility problem, right? So there's real benefits to data sharing, real potential benefits, but there are real risks. I was in New York last week during the General Assembly and in every single meeting, data was the top issue and it's clear that we don't even have the right framework to figure out how to approach the problem, how to even have even break it down. So there's a lot of work that needs to be done and a little bit of agreement on frameworks and ultimately potentially some standards. Right now you've got radically different approaches in the US versus Europe versus India versus China. We're far away from even an agreed view of how to make off those trade-offs and I agree with you, there's different cultures, different societies, we'll make different trade-offs between privacy and access. We may ultimately get towards a standard-setting body. I think Jennifer asked this morning, do the central bank of the future need to manage data? I suspect they'll have a role to play, but it's much bigger issue than just financial services and there probably is a new entity that needs to look particularly at data because it'll be cross-cutting. Yeah, go ahead. I want to think a little more about the trade-offs involved when different countries view this differently. Okay, so if you think of today's Germany, this is a country with deeply entrenched liberal democracy and civil liberties and when there are questions about data and surveillance, we can be reasonably optimistic that they will work out well. But this could be different in different countries. The thought experiment I would like to play to you is would the world be different if Leonid Brezhnev was given modern surveillance technology in the USSR? Okay, would the USSR have come to 1989 if the Communist Party had sufficient surveillance technology? Okay, so these are very important trade-offs and there is a path dependence in these things. Once a society is set off in the direction of executive power and access to surveillance, then potentially you have permanently changed the trajectory of that country. Similarly on these trade-offs, I was struck by the political debates in the UK which led up to the decision that even though we have considerable depth of liberal democracy in the UK, they chose to not do biometric ID because they felt that it would do harm to the political system. So I think we need to think much more about these trade-offs. Not to mention that, and I'm British as well as American, we were too cheap to pay for it. That was part of the debate at the time. But I actually one other point because I've heard a couple of people say, there's this trade-off between data privacy and we wanna take advantage of the opportunities of data in low-income countries. We've just done some recent research saying, actually we have to challenge this assumption that poor people are happy to let their data free because we did some sensitivity testing around this. Very poor people are willing to pay to make sure their data is not shared without their permission, both in time and monetary terms. So I think we'd be really careful about assuming that poor people are just willing to let their data be used by anybody. So I would just caution against that assumption. So we've spent a fair amount of time discussing how new technologies can promote financial inclusion, but it's certainly quite possible that new technologies also create greater exclusion to certain groups. And a good example would be in countries such as Sweden where cash usage has fallen to such low levels in the order of 1% of GDP that it's very difficult to use cash in many transactions because merchants have to drive 20 miles to deposit the cash at the nearest bank or ATM. And so I was wondering what your perspectives are about the role of central banks in trying to redress this financial exclusion possibility in particular, whether it's really incumbent on central banks to bear the cost of making sure that there's a, for instance, uniform medium of exchange available to really most of the population at very low cost. If you don't volunteer, I'm gonna random the selection. If anybody would like to take that. I think that there are positive externalities upon society when poor people will be better connected into the financial system. So I think that is a case for vouchers. But I think it's a transition problem, not an end state problem, right? I think that, but it's significant and it's something we deal with all the time. A lot of the investments we make is to support governments in digitizing government payments to the poorest individuals. And there's a real risk that you're actually doing them more harm than good because they can't readily make access to those payments. So it's absolutely a balance that needs to be stricken. But it's about how do you, in our view, it's about how do you progress the system so that people can take advantage of these digital platforms. And Sophie's point is absolutely right. And I think we totally underestimate the risk of a, if we move everybody to a digital system and the network goes down for a month, which is not at all inconceivable, what do you do? I've run banks in Southern Africa, we had multiple backup plans, right? Where ultimately you would have to go back to your branch, but every branch would have the data there and you'd have generators to try to get back your data. If the system went down, a lot of these new systems have no backup plan and no redundancy plans, and I think it's a huge risk. Okay, Sophie, and can we get a microphone down here? We're gonna go to Jennifer next, but then we have a couple of hands up over here. I don't know where the microphone on this side of the room. Oh, okay, we have another person. Okay, so Sophie, go ahead and then we'll go to Jennifer and then we'll go to the back. And I come back to a point that I made before. There are groups that may be excluded, including persons with disabilities, and if it's retrofitted into your policy and into your activities, it will become a much larger burden for those implementing. Let me give you an example in the telecoms world. If you have, for example, the vision of government that we want all our schools connected, and that's integrated into policy measures, into regulatory measures, including into licensing obligations of telecoms, but you forget to integrate the need that there are children with disabilities. That $100 laptop now becomes $3,000, or there are excuses that are found not to do it. So you really do need to think of it from the start, digital first and digital for all first. And so they're in financial inclusion. Let me put that to you as well, financial inclusion for all. Okay, so we'll take a question here and then we'll go up there. Just a quick comment. I really appreciated both of your comments about data. I agree completely, it needs a superstructure. But on this issue of coordination among central banks, among countries, there is an interesting example that might be worth considering, that's unfolding real time here in the United States, and that's the work that the conference of state banking supervisors is doing to bring maybe not all 50, but as many states as possible together around licensing regulation and supervision of state licensed money service businesses and other kinds of actors. And from an innovation perspective, what's driving, there are many things driving them, but one of them is the FinTech community saying, I can't afford to go the 50 state licensing route because I'm being asked for fingerprints from every single one of my boards of directors, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 50 times over among many, many other challenges. Can't you guys and girls kind of get it together? And the CSBS has making really important strides in common technology systems. And it's not just about the technology though, it becomes a huge issue around process and also around what your existing laws require. And I think one of the things they've found that's really interesting is how much of this is really an issue of what's prescribed by my state law versus what's just process and procedure and custom. And I think they're finding far more of it is the latter than the former. And so I think there's a hopeful story there that might be useful as we think about how to do that on a cross country basis. Great, thank you. I want to take the question up here because I wasn't able to see you before. Go ahead. Yeah, I've been part of the passive organization called Children Youth Finance International. And one thing they did, it was just working with local nonprofits to do financial education amongst young people. But another kind of vision if you're thinking about Central Bank of the Future is every child born in the world will have an account in their name when they're born, which will lead to ID. And it will provide an opportunity for international donors and foundations to kind of do those at deposits without going through a lot of intermediaries. And I just wondered, one, if it's even possible and if that's something that would be entertained in the future. Who would like to? I'm Sweden, I believe, as a governor. Do you have this in Sweden, I believe? That with every child born there, they have the bank ID? Every individual born has an ID and that has been around for long. She wants to have to. I had a discussion just yesterday about whether as you get an ID, should it automatically come with a bank account? So there's obviously issues around with which institution, and I think you'd want a couple of that with easy portability, but it's absolutely possible. Okay, so we've only got five minutes and we've got a whole bunch of hands. Joanne's had her hand up for a while, so can we get a microphone down here? And then I think Baba has his hand up over here. I know there are like dozens. Thank you. Joanne Barefoot with AIR, the Alliance for Innovative Regulation, fantastic panel. Ajah, I'd like to go back to what you were talking about on open source. Michael made the point that if we don't modernize how the regulators do their work, the cost structures will never support full inclusion. And there's a nascent conversation that I hear around the world about regulators moving to an open code and interoperable layer. Can you talk more about what you think is the promise of that and the pathway toward it? I think a lot of regulators hear those words and it sounds alarming. It sounds insecure and so on. So talk more about that. Well, I'll just quickly say two things. One is exactly as Sophie had begun, there is a drill in every regulator. There is a licensing problem. There is a dispute resolution problem, dot, dot, dot. So by the time you study a large number of regulators, you see those design patterns, the same things are happening over and over. Then this part two is really, I would say a self-interest of a regulator that when you wish to improve your internal systems and processes, would you like to start from scratch or would you like to start from a community of practice that has thought a lot about it, has developed a thorough process manual for how to do it and that is available in an encoded open source software system that you welcome to modify for your own internal purposes. So I find that this is a nice and useful way to proceed. It is non-threatening, it doesn't put any discomfort upon the organization that might choose to adopt some of this work. Thank you, great panel. I'd like to throw a hot potato at the panel just for a question. I feel that we're always trying to play catch up and play in a reactive way to big data, right? We're talking, we're talking about telcos, banks and others who talk about regulated entities, but when it comes to big data, it's an unregulated entity right now. And Greta's comment was very interesting, which is a lot of poor people actually would like to be very guarded about their privacy and their data. There's a project at Harvard University I'm trying to learn more about, it's called Data Integrity. The whole premise of it is that we pay a little bit more for some of these apps that we use and instead get nano payments back. And these are not insignificant. Estimates are that US family, typical US family, could get $20,000 a year through all this transfer back of the money and redistribution. So is this relevant for financial inclusion globally? And is there a reason why almost nobody talks about it? Like I've been to a lot of panels and everyone talks about a lot of interesting, important things, but we're not going to root of it, which is the transformation we experienced from land to capital a couple of hundred years ago. And now we're seeing it from capital to data. And it's like, almost there's no redistributive element here at all. So I'm just curious if there's any comment from anyone on the panel. I would say everyone's talking about it, but no one has any answers. You're right. But the whole question of ownership and agency of data, it's a huge issue, but we're right at the beginning of trying to get our hands right. I don't know if we have time for, okay, one more question, random. Okay, I guess. Just have a hand up. Okay, please. And I'm sorry for those who we missed. There was a lot of hands up, so. I feel fortunate, Erin Klein Brookings. I wanted to link something that Jen said was something that AJ said and see people's reactions, which where you said that in India, there was a policy choice to ban the fintechs from access to credit bureaus. And Jen. An example of the policy risk that is unfolding every week. We in India go through one unusual policy action every week. So risk, risk, risk reward, right? Jen made a comment about Equifax having a stale database of old information on folks. Melissa's organization has come out with a fantastic paper showing the benefits of cash flow underwriting as an alternative to credit scoring. And Manju Puri has a fantastic paper looking at Wayfair lending in Germany where five fintech variables outperformed German FICO on an actual loan pool. So the question I have for both AJ and the panel is, do you think that that banning fintechs from credit reporting agencies will produce better, the same, or worse outcomes in terms of accurately measuring risk and risk based pricing for lending? No, I would like to focus on the question of state power. If I was a fintech, I am entirely in your shoes that the new age cash flow based measures are phenomenal. But do you really want to use government, coercive power to force fintechs to not use credit bureaus? That's where I get nervous. And that's the concern about creating a very state led edifice where the business models are being controlled by the government. The NPCI has given limits to WhatsApp on how many number of accounts it can have. There is newspaper talk about NPCI asking Google to cap its market share at 33% in payments. And so this is the sort of stuff that I worry about, that if we go down this route of state control, then we will lose out on the innovation. If anybody else likes to jump in on that. I think it's a very delicate balance that has to be played. And I think if the state is involved as a, first it should be involved just as a catalyst and an e-book. But even if they have something more than that, they have to come out to the market and explain why. I mean, if this decision was taken, then they need to go out. If I don't want to stifle innovation and make sure that I still have the buy-in of all the players, then we have to come out and say why. Maybe they have a legitimate reason, I don't know. But it cannot just be done by, that's it and it has to be enforced because these players have come within a certain environment, with certain rules and regulations and it cannot just be taken out like that. So this balance has to be there. And I think the most important thing is transparency and accountability. The whole question of regulating credit is a difficult one. And it comes back to financial health, right? Is more credit better? Is it the state's role to protect people from themselves? Those are pretty deep questions. I assume, I don't know whether your question of whether you get better underwriting results with less data was rhetorical or, but I don't think anyone would say you get better results by restricting access to data. But that, I don't think that was the, oh, you would say that, maybe so. There's a musical analogy, that everybody in the orchestra attuned to the OPPO's A. Not because it's the truest A in the orchestra, but because it's the hardest instrument to tune. Okay, I think we've gone over our time. I'm not gonna do a massive sum up, but I think there's some really interesting messages coming out between the tension, between control and innovation. What's the appropriate role of government? Is it directing? Is it running? Is it overseeing? Is it nudging? And I think, to your point, it's a very delicate balancing act on all of these. And what technology and particularly data is doing is really challenging us on where that point of balance is. I like a point that somebody made about being really clear about the objective you're trying. What are you trying to solve for in some of these policy questions? And I think that maybe drives towards a better outcome. And also just the need to invest in technology and people. So as we think about what our central bank of the future looks like, there's a big need to invest. And that's not just in emerging markets, that's in developed markets too. And so how do we think about doing that? Clear mandates, but also collaboration between institutions seems to be very clear. And between the private and the public sector, talking to each other really makes a huge difference. So on that note, I'd like to thank my panel for talking to each other today. I think we've had a great conversation and thank you for all the questions from the audience. I'm sorry we didn't get to all of you, but hopefully there will be opportunity to speak at the coffee break. So thanks very much. Thank you.