Prashant Reddy

Great.

And in the element of this identifiable lens, which obviously is the most valuable, I presume this stretches across different subsectors, including life sciences and insurance companies and other providers.

Do we believe that given the amount of complexity and interaction that we can really make that happen?

What are some of those underlying characteristics you require to make it happen?

And does that extend into research as a topic, if you take life sciences or the intermediaries?

This is a fascinating intersection, I think, across three or four different industries that haven't typically collaborated as much historically.

One word you've said at least five times so far is tokenization.

In the context of, I think, data security, could you describe tokenization in layman's terms and what it does and its impact?

This is very interesting.

It's almost like a network switch where the person who owns the two sides of the equation moves information around.

Is that how to think about it?

So ubiquity of the switch, but ensuring complete neutrality is critical for this.

If we abstract this to an industry level versus the specifics of your institution, do you believe that's a model that should be regulated or is this just choices of participants and how they play?

So if I paraphrase that, you're saying that fragmentation will exist.

you could, in theory, regulate it and effectively force consolidation.

But in the current market structure, a solution like tokenization, which allows us to solve a problem despite fragmentation, is the path forward, at least in the short term.

So Pete, just to pick up on a point we discussed earlier around privacy and in the context of a patient.

So you mentioned that

institutions who are the sources of data have rights and responsibilities to actually transport it and approve a movement of information within the network.

But from a patient lens, how should patients think about this in the context of their consent and how they think through this?