of reserves down the road. for all these challenges, i look forward to your ideas, your expertise, your input. because monetary policy is too important, too crucial for our economy and our general well - being, to rely on trial and error. the ecb, the central banks, would prefer to avoid the honour of receiving an ig nobel prize. yes, in the history of the ig nobel prizes some were also awarded as criticism wrapped up in a blanket of satire. for instance, in 2009, the ig nobel for economics was awarded to the directors, executives, and auditors of four icelandic banks for demonstrating that tiny banks can rapidly mushroom into huge banks, and vice versa, and for demonstrating that similar things can happen to an entire national economy. so, to avoid that'honour ', we need data and research to fulfil our mandate, so that we can do the best possible job at what we must do best. because in monetary policy, we cannot live by the slogan of the ig nobel prizes, also the closing remark of the annual ceremony : " if you didn't win a prize – and especially if you did – better luck next year! " so, make us think! 3 / 3 bis - central bankers'speeches

the dutch authority for financial markets that sets out a joint policy vision. our main message is that policymakers should prioritize actions that enable trusted, innovation - enabling and equitable data access. let me briefly elaborate on these three elements : 1 / 2 bis - central bankers'speeches to ensure trust, it is vital that data can only be accessed with the consent of the data owner, and that safeguards ensure that data use results in outcomes that are in the interest of data owners. enhancing the potential for innovation requires that sufficient volumes and varieties of data – both financial and nonfinancial – can be shared and accessed. and ensuring equitable data access means subjecting different types of financial entities to similar rights, rules and requirements with respect to accessing data, while having the possibility to impose access restriction on entities if this would cause harmful data concentration. while fida will help us reaping the benefits of data access, we also need to make sure that we mitigate potential drawbacks. in particular, there is a risk that open finance contributes to price differentiation due to personalized pricing, and the exclusion of those perceived to be high - risk. for example, people who don't give access to their data, either because they don't want to or are not able to, might face higher prices. or, if your payments data show an unusually high number of car repairs, insurance companies may not want to offer you car insurance. in addition, citizens who have not shared their data can be affected by others who have shared their data. when they are automatically included in the dataset being on the other side of a financial transaction, for example, or when data of a small sample of consumers is used to derive behavioral assumptions for a certain sub - group of society. since the negotiations on the fida - proposal are still on their way, regulatory opportunities to mitigate these risks should not be left unused. for legislators this means that they should not only focus their attention on data access in the context of financial services, but also look closely at the interaction with other horizontal pieces of legislation such as the general data protection regulation and the ai act. but even then, a complementary focus is needed to ensure that the outcomes of financial data use are ethical and in the interest of data owners and society overall. in this context, i would like to highlight the importance of requiring data ethics frameworks, which explain what data is used for what processes and what impacts on price differentiation and exclusion