CertiQi

https://lnkd.in/etkBgxC4 It's encouraging to see that the importance of data sharing is becoming more widely recognised, and particularly pleasing to read this item from Fintech Futures. The importance of shared data was what inspired us to create the eKeyiD platform. It solves 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 of the problem by allowing infinite levels of information to be shared freely by means of a short and persistent code. It's technology-agnostic, so can be integrated freely into any operational structure, allowing businesses to interact at any level, not just in financial exchanges. That's great, but notice that I said it's only 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 of the solution. If all the data is held within a single repository, then it can never be truly universal. Our own distributed ledger platform, DotLedger, may be a highly advanced immutable next-generation development of blockchain technology, but it would be naïve to believe that the entire world will convert to it, which is why we've already put in serious work on cross-ledger communication. Multiple data sources are a logical extension of the eKeyiD concept. Taking a payment as an example, the original onboarding data might include company details, defined by our blue key, and one or more personal profiles, designated by individual green keys. Now imagine that a correspondent organisation requests further information on, say, a holding company. This may be held in a completely different storage medium. While it can be copied to our DotLedger, we then have duplicated data which is unlikely to remain synchronised. We worked with another distributed ledger provider to investigate how differing ledger technologies could communicate and share data without breaking confidentiality. It's complicated but doable, and now we have that structure in the armoury for the day it will, without doubt, be required. Along the way, we also devised a mutual verification technique that means a would-be hacker needs to penetrate every connected ledger within the same fraction of a second to achieve a successful invasion. If this sounds like bragging, then so be it; you're probably right. But while organisations write learned articles and committees create roadmaps about what needs to be done, CertiQi has a habit of quietly getting it done. #shareddata #payments #blockchain #distributedledger Bob Blower Ricardo Orsi Fabio Jun Takada Chino

https://lnkd.in/epm8H-Qt Akhil Rao, in his post regarding BIS Bulletin 87, suggests tokenization as a counter to the decline in correspondent banking. This drew a mildly terse response from my great friend, Bob Blower. While Bob's infinitely more informed in these matters than I (or most other earthlings), I have to say I'm something of a fan of tokenization. In fact CertiQi is working actively on a 𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 platform for achieving it. That said, I agree with Bob that it's not the central issue, and that use of data most certainly 𝙞𝙨. The paucity of information available to payment intermediaries was a principal driver in the increased risk that led to the decline in correspondent banking. Transparency through effective data sharing re-enables correspondent banking by creating visibility of every aspect of a transaction, from the KYC stack to the shipping and invoice documents. And it does it without the need for RFIs or duplicated effort. 𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙨 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙚𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩, 𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙥𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙛𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙖𝙮𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙙𝙨 𝙨𝙖𝙛𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙙. The eKeyiD platform does this by interfacing with existing banking systems to allow data to be shared instantly, securely, and without compromising privacy. It achieves the balance of Privacy versus Transparency (PvT) by granularity of access that's controllable by the individuals who are its objects. So, tokenized or not, we can make correspondent banking viable again, but do we still need it? End-to-end transparency, backed by in-depth auditability through a secure distributed storage platform such as DotLedger, allows compliant payments to flow by more direct routes. Not only that but, by structuring whole-business information into ISO 20022, rather than over-focusing on banking, we can join the dots to make a world commerce model that connects payments to the assets to which they refer. And then tokenization becomes the enabler that Akhil envisions. But right now, let's not fight electric lighting by trying to make the gas lamps burn brighter. #CertiQi #ISO20022 #correspondentbanking #tokenization #payments #shareddata

I greatly enjoyed yesterday's podcast by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. It was encouraging to hear so many of CertiQi's foci echoed by such an authoritative body. I was particularly interested to hear PIIE's advocation of connected ledgers, as this chimes closely with our 𝗷𝗼𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝘁𝘀 ethos. We operate a highly developed extension of blockchain technology, which we call 𝗗𝗼𝘁𝗟𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗿. Among other enhancements, it uses a unique cross-block verification lock that ensures the immutability of the contained information without revealing the information itself. The technique is easily transportable to other ledger technologies, allowing communication between platforms that's not only secure, but multiplies resistance to hacking with every new connection. We recently carried out a successful proof of this concept with a trial connection to an external blockchain. Global inclusivity requires more than just financial emancipation for isolated economies. We need to establish a technical lingua franca for all business interactions. With the sharable eKeyiD, we've already moved that goal closer, and connected technologies can bring it closer still. Now's the time for open discussion on how we destroy silos and clear barriers. Let's share ideas and 𝗷𝗼𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝘁𝘀.

https://lnkd.in/eNu3eQ7W The Wolfsberg Group’s Public Consultation on the draft FATF R.16/INR.16 amendments makes interesting reading and raises several highly valid issues. And with that opening, you’re probably already anticipating the “but”. Let me be clear, I respect and applaud WG’s aims and actions. My issue is not with the report’s content, but its scope. Here is an expert analysis of the compliance requirements of card payments; why are we segmenting to this extent? Not only do the majority of the points raised apply to all payments, most apply to any type of business interaction. Any type of commerce relies on a level of trust, and trust is best served by transparency. Rather than take a silo view of one type of transaction, we should be joining the dots. As an example, take the section in which WG opines that the ISO20022 standard should be expanded. Oh yes it should! The existing standard expands the limits imposed by MT messaging, but they’re still limits, and they’re still about payments. When our experts envisaged a compact code that could be embedded in a SWIFT MT103 payment instruction, I confess we were thinking along similar lines. It was later that we saw the wider application. The code, known as an eKeyiD, can be shared openly, and it provides controlled access to an unlimited volume of transaction and/or KYC information. The word “controlled” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Because one code can be shared freely, but the data it unlocks can be role~specific, it can be passed to every participant in an interaction. Those participants can be banks, NBFIs, even the originator and beneficiary. They’re all fully informed and there’s no need for RFIs and duplicated effort. And it doesn’t matter if this is card, cash or barter. It doesn’t even matter if it’s a payment. Companies can publish their eKeyiD to potential customers or partners; insurance, real estate and a myriad other interactions can be made more transparent. That’s why I so strongly favour Wolfsberg’s advocacy of expanding ISO20022. Shorn of its 199 x 280 character limit, it’s the ideal way of implementing a lingua franca for all commerce, not just payments. Let’s think wider and join the dots.