the acpr with representatives of digital asset service providers ( dasps ) on theapplication of anti - money laundering and counter - terrorism financing ( aml / cft ) rules to the cryptoasset sector. as you have understood from these examples, at the banque de france and the acprwe cannot envisage taking action without interacting with the innovative financial ecosystem that you largely represent. 3. this brings me to my last point : what are the challenges that we must not miss collectively? i would particularly like to emphasize here the issues related to the regulatory framework for the transformation of the financial system. the digital finance strategy published by the european commission is already a year old and the roadmap includes many useful and structuring projects for the future. already, the discussions on the mica ( crypto - assets ) and dora ( operational resilience ) projects illustrate the need to reconcile professionals ’ knowledge and operational realities with the general risk control objectives in order to achieve the balance between innovation and financial stability that i mentioned earlier. from my point of view as a supervisor, progress still needs to be made on these texts to reconcile the necessary pragmatism and the necessary flexibility that the search for this balance implies with the requirement for risk control and the prevention of regulatory arbitrage. however, the projects that will be launched in the future are no less crucial. i have in mind, in particular, the framework for the development of decentralised finance ( defi ), for which the usual regulatory frameworks come up against the absence of easily identifiable issuers or providers in an environment governed by protocols executed automatically without intermediaries, and the absence of an appropriate jurisdiction for the services offered. in order to build trust in the financial industry of tomorrow, we therefore need to follow together a two - pronged learning curve : exploring the transformation potential of new technologies on the financial sector, and identifying the regulatory, governance and best practice principles that must accompany this transformation. in this respect, i cannot emphasize enough the relevance for us of the experiments that we have recently conducted with the sector, for our activities of putting into circulation the currency that we issue as a central bank, as well as for our activities as supervisor of banks and insurers. the banque de france thus performed nine experiments with “ wholesale ” central bank digital currency between mid - 2020 and today. as for the acpr, it conducted this year, following the publication of its july 2020 report

affect and already affects our present price stability mandate. this will be heavy work, both in terms of macro and micro economic research – we should enrich our models to integrate the effects of climate –, and in operational methodology – we should reassess our collateral including climate risks. 2. progress is needed on climate disclosures to allow for a consistent risk analysis there are many initiatives on disclosure – and let me pay a special tribute to the progress initiated by the tcfd ( task force on climate - related financial disclosures ) –. but the current lack of granular and comparable datasets in the field of climate risks, undermines our ability to operationalise the assessment of financial risks linked to climate change. 2. 1. many necessary data are still simply missing to foster data availability within the financial sector, in summer 2020, the ngfs launched an ambitious workstream to identify and map lacking data ( financial and non - financial ) relevant to climate risk analysis. we actively look forward to the publication of the preliminary results in the course of 2021 ( that is : a detailed list of data items that are currently lacking, but which are needed ). 2. 2. current disclosures are often hardly comparable however, the available data should also be comparable enough to be processed easily on a large scale, with reliable results. to solve this issue, regulations should be more specific and prescriptive towards climate - related reporting from financial firms as well as corporate firms, including smes ( with proportionality ). this is why we need harmonised and relatively granular reporting standards. france and the eu are at the leading edge and have already implemented targeted disclosure requirements ( art. 173 in france / upcoming “ disclosure regulation ” – sfdr –, to be implemented next march in europe ). however, this is still not enough, as the data disclosed currently lack homogeneity and comparability : this is a major loophole of the implementation of article 173 in france, for instance. we are not yet able to assess and compare the results of financial institutions in our public reports. 2 / 3 bis central bankers'speeches i strongly believe that the eu should keep its first - mover advantage in climate data standardisation. after the adoption, last december, of a sustainable taxonomy, sustainable reporting is actually the next critical step ahead of us to mainstream green finance. i am looking forward to the report the efrag is currently preparing to address this issue [ report to be published on 31