Skip to content

CDM Contribution Review Working Group - January 21st, 2025 #3310

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
21 of 25 tasks
Tracked by #3354
eteridvalishvili opened this issue Jan 6, 2025 · 15 comments
Closed
21 of 25 tasks
Tracked by #3354

CDM Contribution Review Working Group - January 21st, 2025 #3310

eteridvalishvili opened this issue Jan 6, 2025 · 15 comments
Assignees
@llynhiavu

Comments

@eteridvalishvili
Copy link
Contributor

eteridvalishvili commented Jan 6, 2025 •
edited by llynhiavu
Loading

CDM Contribution Review Working Group Minutes

Meeting Host: Lyteck Lynhiavu, ISDA

Date

January 21st, 2025 - 10 am EST / 3 pm GMT

Untracked attendees

  • Fullname, Affiliation, (optional) GitHub username

Meeting notices

  • FINOS Project leads are responsible for observing the FINOS guidelines for running project meetings. Project maintainers can find additional resources in the FINOS Maintainers Cheatsheet.

  • All participants in FINOS project meetings are subject to the LF Antitrust Policy, the FINOS Community Code of Conduct and all other FINOS policies.

  • FINOS meetings involve participation by industry competitors, and it is the intention of FINOS and the Linux Foundation to conduct all of its activities in accordance with applicable antitrust and competition laws. It is therefore extremely important that attendees adhere to meeting agendas, and be aware of, and not participate in, any activities that are prohibited under applicable US state, federal or foreign antitrust and competition laws. Please contact legal@finos.org with any questions.

  • FINOS project meetings may be recorded for use solely by the FINOS team for administration purposes. In very limited instances, and with explicit approval, recordings may be made more widely available.

Agenda

CDM 7 - Development Release Pipeline:

Minutes

  • past meeting minutes approved with small correction from Lionel: It is Regnosys and not Lionel who has been appointed...

  • Scope of the WG – important changes

    • DPBE WG changed to Derivatives WG
    • CRWG now overseeing x-product, workflow/process issues
    • For topics which require more frequent or in-depth discussion the CRWG can appoint a subject taskforce.

  • Release Management Update @LionelSG-REGnosys provided the update. CDM 6 Dev is moving to Production ~ January 23. There will be 3 versions in parallel CDM 5 Prod, 6 Prod and 7 as Dev. PR3300 update to FINOS website: looking for a maintainer(s) to review and approve. The agenda going forward is going to be curated. Regnosys aims to produce the report more mechanically. Lionel and JB triaging PRs and Issues in Github and organizing using labels. The goal is to reduce for more clarity and make it easier to prioritize and assign
    CRWG 21Jan25.pdf

  • 2025 CRWG roadmap (updates TBD) https://cdm.finos.org/docs/cdm-contribution-review-wg/

    • Tom mentioned he provided input for the CRWG via an internal spreadsheet provided to some maintainers/chairs. Action for CRWG chair(s) to review Tom's input / add to the spreadsheet.

CDM 7 - Development Release Pipeline:

  • Issue 3333 Tokenisation - model proposal - Ciarán McGonagle, Tokenovate CDM Token Standards Proposal (3).pdf

    • Leo commented that it was nice to see the asset refactoring being put to use for a new class of objects.
      • as Leo understood the presentation, when we look at asset as a choice construct we have digital asset as one of the possible choices. But specifically, digital asset was for those assets that only exist in digital form. Here Ciaran is talking about adding some attributes to existing assets e.g. it could be cash, or it could be a security like a government to indicate that it's being tokenized, which is why you're adding those attributes in asset base. If that is the construct. Leo was questioning the the rationale for having underlying asset as an attribute, for instance. because by definition this is going to be integrated within that underlying asset. So you already have that link. e.g. for government bond: You're going to have an asset which is security, that government bond. It just happens that it's going to have those tokenized details in addition to all the rest. Leo argued that you probably don't need underlying asset. Ciaran agreed.
      • Leo was uncomfortable with quantities being part of that. You could have a token which is a separate object, and in a token you have an asset which needs to have the tokenized detail, and you have a quantity. But the asset itself doesn't have a quantity in the same way as when we define government bond as a security. We don't put the full denomination as a quantity associated to the asset. It's separate.
      • Ciaran has had internal discussions as well. The challenge that we face is more around fractionalization. Let's use the example of 1 million Google shares. We wouldn't typically value the token by the market value. We would determine the token what it represents by reference to the nominal amount of shares or the amount of shares. And so, if we're sort of fractionalizing that we would essentially burn that token and create 2 new tokens that are potentially each have 500,000 Google shares. Then we could conceivably re-aggregate that into it. So there needs to be some mechanic, for understanding exactly what the token entitles you to, and whether the approach Ciaran presented is the right one. that was the rationale behind it.
    • Manuel asked if the instrument can reference multiple assets at the same time e.g. could you have a token which references like a sharing Google and a gold bar and a government bond. Ciaran mentioned that it probably could but it's not something that Tokenovate was planning to do. This is probably why some industry engagement might be necessary.
    • Lionel noted this is currently put it in asset base. So it applies to asset. could it also apply to basket? the broader question what is the scope? the presented deck clearly says that it doesn't apply to derivatives and securities financing. but there are definitely moves in the industry to tokenize those, too. and this design doesn't satisfy that at the moment. Ciaran acknowledge the need to look more broadly at other use cases.
    • Ciaran will present to the Collateral WG to get opinions from people who are interested in Collateral, and to the Derivatives WG as well
    • Tom thought it was a good start and mentioned a initiatives under ICMA: There is a DLT bonds WG, and a bond data taxonomy. Among all the bonds and issued instruments out there, there's a fair amount of complexity in terms of actually being able to to incorporate a transactional model into a DLT environment when there could be multiple blockchains involved and multiple platforms both on chain and off chain platforms involved to actually represent

  • Cancelled WorkflowStep in CDM (Georgina Tarrés @gtarres / TradeHeader). JB agreed with the proposal. Chris thought it was really good.

  • Entity Identifier Type Entity Identifier Type #3319 (BNPP / Moussel Wandrille wasn't able to join the call). Manu / TH provided an overview.

    • Leo challenged whether the current relationship we have between party, party identifier and legal entities is the right one. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense that we have this party identifier with an identifier, and separately we have the legal entity. and then entity id. the fact that they exist in parallel universes is a bit odd. We may actually want to go even further in harmonizing them: Having one and the same. A legal entity is essentially a party identifier with a name. TH will get back to BNPP and revise the proposal.
      • Tom questioned whether we should take a look at all the party related entity or types as there are circular references that go on between other things that are related to parties and parties themselves. e.g. you can get into a loop of having contact party with contact information, that then refers to a person, and that person refers back to a party without really any clear reason for why it's referring back to the party.

  • Issue 3235 FRAGMOS – Transfer @JBZ-Fragmos - We did not have time to discuss. deferred to the next meeting.

  • Issue 3237 FRAGMOS - enrichment of CorporateAction @JBZ-Fragmos - We did not have time to discuss. deferred to the next meeting.

  • AOB, Q&A & Adjourn (5mins) - None

Zoom info

Join Zoom Meeting

https://zoom.us/j/96436091087?pwd=TUZMYm1KdGt2YWtxdDVHY3BpQzh0QT09
Meeting ID: 964 3609 1087
Passcode: 238896

Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/a3KWGNquN
@JBZ-Fragmos
Copy link
Contributor

JBZ-Fragmos commented Jan 21, 2025 via email •
edited by LionelSG-REGnosys
Loading

@LionelSG-REGnosys
Copy link
Contributor

Kindly remove from Agenda the item below :

Done

@JBZ-Fragmos
Copy link
Contributor

JBZ-Fragmos commented Jan 21, 2025 via email

@chrisisla
Copy link
Contributor

Chris Rayner / ISLA

@eteridvalishvili
Copy link
Contributor Author

Eteri / FINOS

@LionelSG-REGnosys
Copy link
Contributor

Lionel / REGnosys

@valdensmith
Copy link
Contributor

vernon ISDA

@CiaranMcGonagleTokenovate
Copy link

Ciarán McGonagle, Tokenovate

@lolabeis
Copy link
Contributor

Leo Labeis / REGnosys

@tomhealey-icma
Copy link
Contributor

Tom Healey/ICMA

@manel-martos
Copy link
Contributor

Manuel Martos / TradeHeader

@JBZ-Fragmos
Copy link
Contributor

Jean-Baptiste Ziadé / Fragmos

@gtarres
Copy link
Contributor

gtarres commented Jan 21, 2025

Georgina Tarres / TradeHeader

@lagarciath
Copy link

Laura Garcia / TradeHeader

@mgratacos
Copy link
Contributor

Marc Gratacos / TradeHeader

@manel-martos manel-martos mentioned this issue Jan 22, 2025
Closed
@eteridvalishvili eteridvalishvili mentioned this issue Jan 29, 2025
Closed
28 tasks
@gtarres gtarres mentioned this issue Jan 31, 2025
Open
@lolabeis lolabeis removed the meeting label Feb 13, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@llynhiavu llynhiavu

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests