by low - income households and vulnerable groups is imperative. while prices of phone sets continue to fall, the transition by financial service providers from unstructured supplementary service data ( ussd ) - based sms services to proprietary apps is not without concerns. consumers should also benefit from reduced marginal cost of additional digital financial services, as provided by the underlying technologies. however, it is also true that the reliability of the services provided is crucial for consumers. for instance, recent studies on enhancing access to clean water in informal settlements in kenya ( mathare and kibera ) indicate that low - income households are disposed to pay twice as much to water vendors for reliable water services. this may therefore be an opportune time to start a discussion of the cost of these digital financial services. bis central bankers ’ speeches secondly, we are seeing increased standardization of processes, structures, and rules, across technological platforms. but do common standards have an impact on innovation? are they synonymous with interoperability? technological standards support the production process and market penetration of products, and therefore have a significant collective effect on innovation, productivity, and market structure. however, the existing market dynamics with dominant leaders, coupled with standardization, are bound to have a considerable impact on switching costs and network effects. these would run counter to the long - term objective of enhancing market access with evolving technology. i believe that it is safe to say that the more an industry depends on interoperability, the more the standards will be evidenced. my fear is that standardization has the potential of creating an over reliance on certain technologies, thereby limiting the adoption of new and more efficient technologies. open digital platforms can improve interoperability and widen consumer choice by expanding the network of available access points for consumers and service providers. thirdly, the growing adoption of digital financial services also raises a number of consumer protection concerns. these include : a lack of safeguards for funds held by institutions outside the financial regulatory perimeter ; limited disclosure of fees, terms and conditions ; insufficient agent liquidity ; irresponsible lending through digital channels, and agent fraud ; system downtime that prevents access to funds ; and unclear or limited recourse systems. what is clear is that a sound consumer and data protection framework is essential, especially for vulnerable consumers with limited resources to absorb losses. questions of data privacy amidst the explosion of cybercrime are of particular concern. questions about ownership and control of the vast data that is generated through the digital financial services also need urgent attention. building

, “ without the need for a trusted third party. ” and the media dubbed blockchain the “ trust machine ”. however, a closer look reveals a missing link. it is correct that blockchain enables us to send digital tokens. and everyone involved can check that the token has been sent only once by its previous owner. so, blockchain solves the famous “ double - spending ” problem. however, the trust in that token – let ’ s call it bitcoin for the sake of argument – is confined to the virtual world. bitcoins do not exist outside the blockchain. they can only be transferred across the blockchain and cannot leave it. a security, by contrast, embodies a claim in the real world. while that security can be transferred via distributed ledger technology, its migration onto the blockchain depends on the existence of a body, such as a central securities depository, to link real, off - ledger assets with the digital world. and yes, there might be many ways of creating trust among potential users. but it can be only money which is accepted universally in the country in question. it is not enough that a few people or a small group believes that it could be money. money is indeed a mysterious topic. how could it be that kauri shells or stone slabs were used as money in ancient times? but this simply shows that money is always a social phenomenon, rather than purely a matter of mathematics or algorithms. and in the end, money must be based on real experiences. because, in the end, it is not the virtual experience which counts but the reference point in the real world : the possibility of exchanging money for goods – today, tomorrow, next week, and in the coming years. principle 2 : trust in money is based on fundamental values the second principle is : trust in money is based on fundamental values. there are two forms of money : money as a good or money as a claim. money as a good could mean consumer goods such as cigarettes or commodities such as gold. these have intrinsic value for consumers or producers. and the fundamental intrinsic value is the basis for trust in money. money as a claim is the dominant form of money nowadays. this could be a claim on a commercial bank or on a central bank. ultimately, the safest form is a claim on a central bank. we call that central bank money. so euro coins and notes are counted as liabilities in the balance