...
- We helped draft the Vehicle Identity Standard for MOBI ( the v.3 draft document is here )
- We can leverage the MOBI model nicely for our related blockchains
- MOBI is looking at the connected vehicle interfaces for related blockchains
- Many vendors are working on independent projects for connected vehicle vehicles and some of those include proprietary blockchain
- AGL ( Automotive Grade Linux project ) is probably the leading standard on this planet for connected vehicle integration and management
- If we stay partnered with MOBI and AGL we will have the most the vehicle integration on the vehicle and related blockchain, AI solutions that we can leverage
Potential Challenges and Questions
On-vehicle and off-vehicle systems
Is the VID a document in a ledger that is tied to the VIN?
The on-vehicle systems include local blockchains. The VID resides on the vehicle and will be accessed by external parties ( DMX etc ) who are authorized to access the VID views. The VID includes a digital version of the VIN along with the VBC ( Vehicle Birth Certificate ) issued by OEMs.
DMX solutions sit off-vehicle now and synch as needed with the vehicle. Our blockchain model reflects some of the blockchains on the vehicle ( VINblock similar to VID ). There will be many applications, services and related data and blockchains off-vehicle that will integrate with the on-vehicle systems.
Wallets and identities
Where are each of these various certificates referred to created and ledgered ?
There are hardware and software car wallets that OEMs can add to vehicles to securely store identities on the vehicle. The organizations issuing the identities will logically be able to provide recovery services. OEMs will issue a certificate for related data ( Vehicle Birth Certificate ) etc. Dealers, Insurers, payment providers etc can also issue certificates.
Implementation
This appears to me to be a mix of both defining standards but also defining a new system, which means I gather its defining a single system that would be built and hosted by finite private parties. Am I reading this correctly?
In theory, the standards and supporting recommendations on architecture, governance can be used by others to build solutions with common designs that should interoperate well with lower overall costs than independent design efforts. With well-defined blockchains, there isn't any reason multiple vendors can't benefit from shared, immutable, trusted ledgers with private data and access controls at lower costs than building independent systems.
Our team hasn't been looking at the economics of the vehicle ecosystem directly. We proposed a separate study for use cases on connected vehicle systems that focuses on business value delivered for different parties. The MOBI leaders haven't approved that yet. The UBI ( Usage Based Insurance ) team I'm part of now should look at the insurance use cases in detail.
That said, it's clear many parties are looking to invest in building these systems. OEMs and some vehicle component vendors are building them on their own now. With AGL, MOBI and other industry standardization efforts and the benefits of a trusted shared ledger ecosystem with tokens, accounts and payments, I expect it's easier to measure benefits accurately and transact between receivers and providers of value in the ecosystem.
Will many of these systems ( traffic, insurance, payments, maintenance etc) be hosted by finite private parties? I'll guess yes. Similar to the new shared systems of the IBM Food Trust network, the IBM - Maersk shipping system and others, you have dominant industry players in a segment ( Walmart, Maersk etc ) partnering with network providers: IBM, Microsoft, AWS etc ) to create dominant ecosystems. With 5G, you may also see governments award the entire network contract to a single vendor the way the Federal government awarded FirstNet to AT&T. Looking at ledger frameworks for related off-vehicle systems, I expect some will be proposed by lead vendors ( Fabric, Corda, Quorum, Ethereum ). I would be surprised to see other frameworks in consideration on a broad basis.
The question is who and how will DMX partner with on these efforts and what is our value-add in these ecosystems. In addition to direct efforts with OEMs and other industry leaders, our participation in these industry groups ( Hyperledger, MOBI, AGL ) can help find trends and opportunities.
Governance
Is governance of such an system subject to a new regulatory body and if so, how is that body going to be constituted?
In our VID specification draft, we anticipated the role for regulatory organizations and have defined a regulator role.
Clearly the model of connected, shared, immutable, trusted ledgers with private data and access controls makes governance relatively easy and low-cost. There are many existing regulatory bodies that have responsibilities on vehicles, titles, driving performance, tolls, compliance etc. The architecture allows an easier, secure, connected environment with clear access controls for these organizations to perform their duties.
Given the criticality of these new vehicle subsystems for safety, operation etc I think you are right that requirements and regulations will change. Some regulators may have expanded responsibilities and new ones may be required or legislated.
Vehicles now have digital identities, operate intelligently, wallets, accounts for payment, real-time integration with traffic systems, insurance, maintenance and emergency services. Vehicles can interact directly with any entity: OEMs, dealers, service providers, owners, drivers, regulators etc.
In my opinion, if this goes right you have governments providing regulations along with industry consortiums. For example, FINRA does a very good job in the financial services industry providing education and compliance oversight and reducing SEC audit audits and costs.
Candidate Solutions
Step-by-step guide for Example
...