Page tree

Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


Please add or edit yourself or your affiliation.

  • Vipin Bharathan
  • Alisa DiCaprio R3
  • Bobby Muscara
  • Siva A
  • Parm IBM


Anti-Trust and Code of conduct

  1. Discussion on the Taxonomy white paper
  2. AML: LEI & FATF what do they have to do with Trade Finance?
  3. Existing Trade Finance Initiatives from HKEX, Macao and China and Chinese CBDC- Central Bank Digital Currency.
    1. We will also talk about links to existing TF projects (We.Trade, Voltron) from the HKEX project
  4. Trade Finance MVPs, PoCs are there any production deployments?




    Marco Polo?





  5. AOB





  • In Will Lovell's absence, Vipin Bharathan is running the call.
  • Anti trust policy reading, plus code of conduct
  • Bobbi shared a straw person representation of the taxonomy she developed
  • Long discussion about the purpose and outputs of the SIG, prompted by the taxonomy discussion
    • Alisa: Taxonomy as it is written or conceived is not useful especially to people in TF
      • New to the group
      • Who can usefully talk about regulation? Since we do not have any legal experts in the group.
      • Useful would be the discussion on the elements that cross  different products  viz. Identity, or Trade finance concepts like (Bills Of Lading) BoL, how do you settle
      • What is the purpose of the whitepaper?
      • Who is it for? - if it is for Techies to get comfortable with TF then it is not value add for TF people
      • How do we expect to get more than projects are willing to publicly share?
      • Many people just listen and do not contribute
    • Parm:
      • Use cases do not have the same meaning in all contexts
      • We need to address a. Logistics, b.Insurance c.Technology e.Legal f. Standards
      • Specific variations can be addressed; for example what can a Japanese TF expert learn about how GDPR or compliance in TF work in her context
      • Sees some value in taxonomy
      • Is willing to share some (public) aspects of specific projects that he is responsible for (We.Trade)
    • Bobbi Muscara:
      • Taxonomy as strawperson, just as an introduction
      • Takes the example of the Social Impact SIG, illustrating the creation of Taxonomy in that group with the division of labor in creating content
      • SIGs are a place where you can discuss cross industry and cross Hyperledger and even other dlts
      • Bring people together and hope for virtuous collaboration
      • She shared a view from Social Impact SIG that drew circles around
      • It is a standing conference on TF that is not focused on specific solution
    • Vipin:
      • Taxonomy is just a launchpad for other efforts-
      • See if it is possible to get real numbers from existing projects
      • There have to interoperability discussions with other projects in capital markets (i.e. if TF is securitized on one platform how will it be traded on a CM post-settlement platform)
      • See the SIG as a jumping off point with information being organized in a particular way-for people to conduct investigations or research
      • There is an explosion of press releases related to projects, the SIG could help curate and navigate this information
      • What are the latest public statuses of Monetago/We.Trade/DLTLedger/Marco Polo/Voltron?
  • We briefly looked at the press release that is pasted on the top of the Agenda about the TF groups in China collaborating with PBOC efforts on CBDC. This might meet one of Alisa's criteria namely addressing  the settlement aspects of a Trade Finance deal.
  • Alisa said that she could come up with data about latest public statuses of Monetago/Marco Polo/Voltron and other R3 projects. We could then put them up as links in the TF WG.