>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto and Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCube and ETR, this is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> When a piece of digital art sells for $69.3 million, more than has ever been paid for works, by Gauguin or Salvador Dali, making it created the third most expensive living artists in the world. One can't help but take notice and ask, what is going on? The latest craze around NFTs may feel a bit bubblicious, but it's yet another sign, that the digital age is now fully upon us. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon's CUBE insights, powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we want to take a look at some of the trends, that may be difficult for observers and investors to understand, but we think offer significant insights to the future and possibly some opportunities for young investors many of whom are fans of this program. And how the trends may relate to enterprise tech. Okay, so this guy Beeple is now the hottest artist on the planet. That's his Twitter profile. That picture on the inset. His name is Mike Winkelmann. He is actually a normal looking dude, but that's the picture he chose for his Twitter. This collage reminds me of the Million Dollar Homepage. You may already know the story, but many of you may not. Back in 2005 a college kid from England named Alex Tew, T-E-W created The Million Dollar Homepage to fund his education. And his idea was to create a website with a million pixels, and sell ads at a dollar for each pixel. Guess how much money he raised. A million bucks, right? No, wrong. He raised $1,037,100. How so you ask? Well, he auctioned off the last 1000 pixels on eBay, which fetched an additional $38,000. Crazy, right? Well, maybe not. Pretty creative in a way, way early sign of things to come. Now, I'm not going to go deep into NFTs, and explain the justification behind them. There's a lot of material that's been published that can do justice to the topic better than I can. But here are the basics, NFTs stands for Non-Fungible Tokens. They are digital representations of assets that exist in a blockchain. Now, each token as a unique and immutable identifier, and it uses cryptography to ensure its authenticity. NFTs by the name, they're not fungible. So, unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum or other cryptocurrencies, which can be traded on a like-for-like basis, in other words, if you and I each own one bitcoin we know exactly how much each of our bitcoins is worth at any point of time. Non-Fungible Tokens each have their own unique values. So, they're not comparable on a like-to-like basis. But what's the point of this? Well, NFTs can be applied to any property, identities tweets, videos, we're seeing collectables, digital art, pretty much anything. And it's really. The use cases are unlimited. And NFTs can streamline transactions, and they can be bought and sold very efficiently without the need for a trusted third party involved. Now, the other benefit is the probability of fraud, is greatly reduced. So where do NFTs fit as an asset class? Well, they're definitely a new type of asset. And again, I'm not going to try to justify their existence, but I want to talk about the choices, that investors have in the market today. The other day, I was on a call with Jay Po. He is a VC and a Principal at a company called Stage 2 Capital. He's a former Bessemer VC and one of the sharper investors around. And he was talking about the choices that investors have and he gave a nice example that I want to share with you and try to apply here. Now, as an investor, you have alternatives, of course we're showing here a few with their year to date charts. Now, as an example, you can buy Amazon stock. Now, if you bought just about exactly a year ago you did really well, you probably saw around an 80% return or more. But if you want to jump in today, your mindset might be, hmm, well, okay. Amazon, they're going to be around for a long time, so it's kind of low risk and I like the stock, but you're probably going to get, well let's say, maybe a 10% annual return over the longterm, 15% or maybe less maybe single digits, but, maybe more than that but it's unlikely that any kind of reasonable timeframe within any reasonable timeframe you're going to get a 10X return. In order to get that type of return on invested capital, Amazon would have to become a $16 trillion valued company. So, you sit there, you asked yourself, what's the probability that Amazon goes out of business? Well, that's pretty low, right? And what are the chances it becomes a $16 trillion company over the next several years? Well, it's probably more likely that it continues to grow at that more stable rate that I talked about. Okay, now let's talk about Snowflake. Now, as you know, we've covered the company quite extensively. We watched this company grow from an early stage startup and then saw its valuation increase steadily as a private company, but you know, even early last year it was valued around $12 billion, I think in February, and as late as mid September right before the IPO news hit that Marc Benioff and Warren Buffett were going to put in $250 million each at the IPO or just after the IPO and it was projected that Snowflake's valuation could go over $20 billion at that point. And on day one after the IPO Snowflake, closed worth more than $50 billion, the stock opened at 120, but unless you knew a guy, you had to hold your nose and buy on day one. And you know, maybe got it at 240, maybe you got it at 250, you might have got it at higher and at the time you might recall, I said, You're likely going to get a better price than on day one, which is usually the case with most IPOs, stock today's around 230. But you look at Snowflake today and if you want to buy in, you look at it and say, Okay, well I like the company, it's probably still overvalued, but I can see the company's value growing substantially over the next several years, maybe doubling in the near to midterm [mumbles] hit more than a hundred billion dollar valuation back as recently as December, so that's certainly feasible. The company is not likely to flame out because it's highly valued, I have to probably be patient for a couple of years. But you know, let's say I liked the management, I liked the company, maybe the company gets into the $200 billion range over time and I can make a decent return, but to get a 10X return on Snowflake you have to get to a valuation of over a half a trillion. Now, to get there, if it gets there it's going to become one of the next great software companies of our time. And you know, frankly if it gets there I think it's going to go to a trillion. So, if that's what your bet is then you know, you would be happy with that of course. But what's the likelihood? As an investor you have to evaluate that, what's the probability? So, it's a lower risk investment in Snowflake but maybe more likely that Snowflake, you know, they run into competition or the market shifts, maybe they get into the $200 billion range, but it really has to transform the industry execute for you to get in to that 10 bagger territory. Okay, now let's look at a different asset that is cryptocurrency called Compound, way more risky. But Compound is a decentralized protocol that allows you to lend and borrow cryptocurrencies. Now, I'm not saying go out and buy compound but just as a thought exercise is it's got an asset here with a lower valuation, probably much higher upside, but much higher risk. But so for Compound to get to 10X return it's got to get to $20 billion valuation. Now, maybe compound isn't the right asset for your cup of tea, but there are many cryptos that have made it that far and if you do your research and your homework you could find a project that's much, much earlier stage that yes, is higher risk but has a much higher upside that you can participate in. So, this is how investors, all investors really look at their choices and make decisions. And the more sophisticated investors, they're going to use detailed metrics and analyze things like MOIC, Multiple on Invested Capital and IRR, which is Internal Rate of Return, do TAM analysis, Total Available Market. They're going to look at competition. They're going to look at detailed company models in ARR and Churn rates and so forth. But one of the things we really want to talk about today and we brought this up at the snowflake IPO is if you were Buffet or Benioff and you had to, you know, quarter of a dollars to put in you could get an almost guaranteed return with your late in the game, but pre IPO money or a look if you were Mike Speiser or one of the earlier VCs or even someone like Jeremy Burton who was part of the inside network you could get stock or options, much cheaper. You get a 5X, 10X, 50X or even North of a hundred X return like the early VCs who took a big risk. But chances are, you're not one of these in one of these categories. So how can you as a little guy participate in something big and you might remember at the time of the snowflake IPO we showed you this picture, who are these people, Olaf Carlson-Wee, Chris Dixon, this girl Sono. And of course Tim Berners-Lee, you know, that these are some of the folks that inspired me personally to pay attention to crypto. And I want to share the premise that caught my attention. It was this. Think about the early days of the internet. If you saw what Berners-Lee was working on or Linus Torvalds, in one to invest in the internet, you really couldn't. I mean, you couldn't invest in Linux or TCP/IP or HTTP. Suppose you could have invested in Cisco after its IPO that would have paid off pretty big time, for sure. You know, he could have waited for the Netscape IPO but the core infrastructure of the internet was fundamentally not directly a candidate for investment by you or really, you know, by anybody. And Satya Nadella said the other day we have reached maximum centralization. The main protocols of the internet were largely funded by the government and they've been co-opted by the giants. But with crypto, you actually can invest in core infrastructure technologies that are building out a decentralized internet, a new internet, you know call it web three Datto. It's a big part of the investment thesis behind what Carlson-wee is doing. And Andreessen Horowitz they have two crypto funds. They've raised more than $800 million to invest and you should read the firm's crypto investment thesis and maybe even take their crypto startup classes and some great content there. Now, one of the people that I haven't mentioned in this picture is Camila Russo. She's a journalist she's turned into hardcore crypto author is doing great job explaining the white hot defining space or decentralized finance. If you're just at read her work and educate yourself and learn more about the future and be happy perhaps you'll find some 10X or even hundred X opportunities. So look, there's so much innovation going around going on around blockchain and crypto. I mean, you could listen to Warren Buffet and Janet Yellen who implied this is all going to end badly. But while look, these individuals they're smart people. I don't think they would be my go-to source on understanding the potential of the technology and the future of what it could bring. Now, we've talked earlier at the, at the start here about NFTs. DeFi is one of the most interesting and disruptive trends to FinTech, names like Celsius, Nexo, BlockFi. BlockFi let's actually the average person participate in liquidity pools is actually quite interesting. Crypto is going mainstream Tesla, micro strategy putting Bitcoin on their balance sheets. We have a 2017 Jamie diamond. He called Bitcoin a tulip bulb like fraud, yet just the other day JPM announced a structured investment vehicle to give its clients a basket of stocks that have exposure to crypto, PayPal allowing customers to buy, sell, and Hodl crypto. You can trade crypto on Robin Hood. Central banks are talking about launching digital currencies. I talked about the Fedcoin for a number of years and why not? Coinbase is doing an IPO will give it a value of over a hundred billion. Wow, that sounds frothy, but still big names like Mark Cuban and Jamaat palliate Patiala have been active in crypto for a while. Gronk is getting into NFTs. So it goes to have a little bit of that bubble feel to it. But look often when tech bubbles burst they shake out the pretenders but if there's real tech involved, some contenders emerge. So, and they often do so as dominant players. And I really believe that the innovation around crypto is going to be sustained. Now, there is a new web being built out. So if you want to participate, you got to do some research figure out things like how PolkaWorks, make a call on whether you think avalanche is an Ethereum killer dig in and find out about new projects and form a thesis. And you may, as a small player be able to find some big winners, but look you do have to be careful. There was a lot of fraud during the ICO. Craze is your risk. So understand the Tokenomics and maybe as importantly the Pump-a-nomics, because they certainly loom as dangers. This is not for the faint of heart but because I believe it involves real tech. I like it way better than Reddit stocks like GameStop for example, now not to diss Reddit. There's some good information on Reddit. If you're patient, you can find it. And there's lots of good information flowing on Discord. There's people flocking to Telegram as a hedge against big tech. Maybe there's all sounds crazy. And you know what, if you've grown up in a privileged household and you have a US Education you know, maybe it is nuts and a bit too risky for you. But if you're one of the many people who haven't been able to participate in these elite circles there are things going on, especially outside of the US that are democratizing investment opportunities. And I think that's pretty cool. You just got to be careful. So, this is a bit off topic from our typical focus and ETR survey analysis. So let's bring this back to the enterprise because there's a lot going on there as well with blockchain. Now let me first share some quotes on blockchain from a few ETR Venn Roundtables. First comment is from a CIO to diversified holdings company who says correctly, blockchain will hit the finance industry first but there are use cases in healthcare given the privacy and security concerns and logistics to ensure provenance and reduce fraud. And to that individual's point about finance. This is from the CTO of a major financial platform. We're really taking a look at payments. Yeah. Do you think traditional banks are going to lose control of the payment systems? Well, not without a fight, I guess, but look there's some real disruption possibilities here. And just last comment from a government CIO says, we're going to wait until the big platform players they get into their software. And so that is happening Oracle, IBM, VMware, Microsoft, AWS Cisco, they all have blockchain initiatives going on, now by the way, none of these tech companies wants to talk about crypto. They try to distance themselves from that topic which is understandable, I guess, but I'll tell you there's far more innovation going on in crypto than there is in enterprise tech companies at this point. But I predict that the crypto innovations will absolutely be seeping into enterprise tech players over time. But for now the cloud players, they want to support developers who are building out this new internet. The database is certainly a logical place to support a mutable transactions which allow people to do business one-on-one and have total confidence that the source hasn't been hacked or changed and infrastructure to support smart contracts. We've seen that. The use cases in the enterprise are endless asset tracking data access, food, tracking, maintenance, KYC or know your customer, there's applications in different industries, telecoms, oil and gas on and on and on. So look, think of NFTs as a signal crypto craziness is a signal. It's a signal as to how IT in other parts of companies and their data might be organized, managed and tracked and protected, and very importantly, valued. Look today. There's a lot of memes. Crypto kitties, art, of course money as well. Money is the killer app for blockchain, but in the future the underlying technology of blockchain and the many percolating innovations around it could become I think will become a fundamental component of a new digital economy. So get on board, do some research and learn for yourself. Okay, that's it for today. Remember all of these episodes they're available as podcasts, wherever you listen. I publish weekly on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. Please feel free to comment on my LinkedIn post or tweet me @dvellante or email me at david.vellante@siliconangle.com. Don't forget to check out etr.plus for all the survey action and data science. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Be well, be careful out there in crypto land. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next time. (soft music)

>>from around the globe. It's the Cube presenting Cuban cloud brought to you by silicon angle in 2000 >>nine. Hal Varian, Google's chief economist, said that statisticians would be the sexiest job in the coming decade. The modern big data movement >>really >>took off later in the following year. After the Second Hadoop World, which was hosted by Claudette Cloudera in New York City. Jeff Ham Abakar famously declared to me and John further in the Cube that the best minds of his generation, we're trying to figure out how to get people to click on ads. And he said that sucks. The industry was abuzz with the realization that data was the new competitive weapon. Hadoop was heralded as the new data management paradigm. Now, what actually transpired Over the next 10 years on Lee, a small handful of companies could really master the complexities of big data and attract the data science talent really necessary to realize massive returns as well. Back then, Cloud was in the early stages of its adoption. When you think about it at the beginning of the last decade and as the years passed, Maurin Mawr data got moved to the cloud and the number of data sources absolutely exploded. Experimentation accelerated, as did the pace of change. Complexity just overwhelmed big data infrastructures and data teams, leading to a continuous stream of incremental technical improvements designed to try and keep pace things like data Lakes, data hubs, new open source projects, new tools which piled on even Mawr complexity. And as we reported, we believe what's needed is a comm pleat bit flip and how we approach data architectures. Our next guest is Jean Marc de Connie, who is the director of emerging technologies That thought works. John Mark is a software engineer, architect, thought leader and adviser to some of the world's most prominent enterprises. She's, in my view, one of the foremost advocates for rethinking and changing the way we create and manage data architectures. Favoring a decentralized over monolithic structure and elevating domain knowledge is a primary criterion. And how we organize so called big data teams and platforms. Chamakh. Welcome to the Cube. It's a pleasure to have you on the program. >>Hi, David. This wonderful to be here. >>Well, okay, so >>you're >>pretty outspoken about the need for a paradigm shift in how we manage our data and our platforms that scale. Why do you feel we need such a radical change? What's your thoughts there? >>Well, I think if you just look back over the last decades you gave us, you know, a summary of what happened since 2000 and 10. But if even if we go before then what we have done over the last few decades is basically repeating and, as you mentioned, incrementally improving how we've managed data based on a certain assumptions around. As you mentioned, centralization data has to be in one place so we can get value from it. But if you look at the parallel movement off our industry in general since the birth of Internet, we are actually moving towards decentralization. If we think today, like if this move data side, if he said the only way Web would work the only way we get access to you know various applications on the Web pages is to centralize it. We would laugh at that idea, but for some reason we don't. We don't question that when it comes to data, right? So I think it's time to embrace the complexity that comes with the growth of number of sources, the proliferation of sources and consumptions models, you know, embrace the distribution of sources of data that they're not just within one part of organization. They're not just within even bounds of organization there beyond the bounds of organization. And then look back and say Okay, if that's the trend off our industry in general, Um, given the fabric of computation and data that we put in, you know globally in place, then how the architecture and technology and organizational structure incentives need to move to embrace that complexity. And to me, that requires a paradigm shift, a full stack from how we organize our organizations, how we organize our teams, how we, you know, put a technology in place, um, to to look at it from a decentralized angle. >>Okay, so let's let's unpack that a little bit. I mean, you've spoken about and written that today's big architecture and you basically just mentioned that it's flawed, So I wanna bring up. I love your diagrams of a simple diagram, guys, if you could bring up ah, figure one. So on the left here we're adjusting data from the operational systems and other enterprise data sets and, of course, external data. We cleanse it, you know, you've gotta do the do the quality thing and then serve them up to the business. So So what's wrong with that picture that we just described and give granted? It's a simplified form. >>Yeah, quite a few things. So, yeah, I would flip the question may be back to you or the audience if we said that. You know, there are so many sources off the data on the Actually, the data comes from systems and from teams that are very diverse in terms off domains. Right? Domain. If if you just think about, I don't know retail, Uh, the the E Commerce versus Order Management versus customer This is a very diverse domains. The data comes from many different diverse domains. And then we expect to put them under the control off a centralized team, a centralized system. And I know that centralization. Probably if you zoom out, it's centralized. If you zoom in it z compartmentalized based on functions that we can talk about that and we assume that the centralized model will be served, you know, getting that data, making sense of it, cleansing and transforming it then to satisfy in need of very diverse set of consumers without really understanding the domains, because the teams responsible for it or not close to the source of the data. So there is a bit of it, um, cognitive gap and domain understanding Gap, um, you know, without really understanding of how the data is going to be used, I've talked to numerous. When we came to this, I came up with the idea. I talked to a lot of data teams globally just to see, you know, what are the pain points? How are they doing it? And one thing that was evident in all of those conversations that they actually didn't know after they built these pipelines and put the data in whether the data warehouse tables or like, they didn't know how the data was being used. But yet the responsible for making the data available for these diverse set of these cases, So s centralized system. A monolithic system often is a bottleneck. So what you find is, a lot of the teams are struggling with satisfying the needs of the consumers, the struggling with really understanding the data. The domain knowledge is lost there is a los off understanding and kind of in that in that transformation. Often, you know, we end up training machine learning models on data that is not really representative off the reality off the business. And then we put them to production and they don't work because the semantic and the same tax off the data gets lost within that translation. So we're struggling with finding people thio, you know, to manage a centralized system because there's still the technology is fairly, in my opinion, fairly low level and exposes the users of those technologies. I said, Let's say warehouse a lot off, you know, complexity. So in summary, I think it's a bottleneck is not gonna, you know, satisfy the pace of change, of pace, of innovation and the pace of, you know, availability of sources. Um, it's disconnected and fragmented, even though the centralizes disconnected and fragmented from where the data comes from and where the data gets used on is managed by, you know, a team off hyper specialized people that you know, they're struggling to understand the actual value of the data, the actual format of the data, so it's not gonna get us where our aspirations and ambitions need to be. >>Yes. So the big data platform is essentially I think you call it, uh, context agnostic. And so is data becomes, you know, more important, our lives. You've got all these new data sources, you know, injected into the system. Experimentation as we said it with the cloud becomes much, much easier. So one of the blockers that you've started, you just mentioned it is you've got these hyper specialized roles the data engineer, the quality engineer, data scientists and and the It's illusory. I mean, it's like an illusion. These guys air, they seemingly they're independent and in scale independently. But I think you've made the point that in fact, they can't that a change in the data source has an effect across the entire data lifecycle entire data pipeline. So maybe you could maybe you could add some color to why that's problematic for some of the organizations that you work with and maybe give some examples. >>Yeah, absolutely so in fact, that initially the hypothesis around that image came from a Siris of requests that we received from our both large scale and progressive clients and progressive in terms of their investment in data architectures. So this is where clients that they were there were larger scale. They had divers and reached out of domains. Some of them were big technology tech companies. Some of them were retail companies, big health care companies. So they had that diversity off the data and the number off. You know, the sources of the domains they had invested for quite a few years in, you know, generations. If they had multi generations of proprietary data warehouses on print that they were moving to cloud, they had moved to the barriers, you know, revisions of the Hadoop clusters and they were moving to the cloud. And they the challenges that they were facing were simply there were not like, if I want to just, like, you know, simplifying in one phrase, they were not getting value from the data that they were collecting. There were continuously struggling Thio shift the culture because there was so much friction between all of these three phases of both consumption of the data and transformation and making it available consumption from sources and then providing it and serving it to the consumer. So that whole process was full of friction. Everybody was unhappy. So its bottom line is that you're collecting all this data. There is delay. There is lack of trust in the data itself because the data is not representative of the reality has gone through a transformation. But people that didn't understand really what the data was got delayed on bond. So there is no trust. It's hard to get to the data. It's hard to create. Ultimately, it's hard to create value from the data, and people are working really hard and under a lot of pressure. But it's still, you know, struggling. So we often you know, our solutions like we are. You know, Technologies will often pointed to technology. So we go. Okay, This this version of you know, some some proprietary data warehouse we're using is not the right thing. We should go to the cloud, and that certainly will solve our problems. Right? Or warehouse wasn't a good one. Let's make a deal Lake version. So instead of you know, extracting and then transforming and loading into the little bits. And that transformation is that, you know, heavy process, because you fundamentally made an assumption using warehouses that if I transform this data into this multi dimensional, perfectly designed schema that then everybody can run whatever choir they want that's gonna solve. You know everybody's problem, but in reality it doesn't because you you are delayed and there is no universal model that serves everybody's need. Everybody that needs the divers data scientists necessarily don't don't like the perfectly modeled data. They're looking for both signals and the noise. So then, you know, we've We've just gone from, uh, et elles to let's say now to Lake, which is okay, let's move the transformation to the to the last mile. Let's just get load the data into, uh into the object stores into semi structured files and get the data. Scientists use it, but they're still struggling because the problems that we mentioned eso then with the solution. What is the solution? Well, next generation data platform, let's put it on the cloud, and we sell clients that actually had gone through, you know, a year or multiple years of migration to the cloud. But with it was great. 18 months I've seen, you know, nine months migrations of the warehouse versus two year migrations of the various data sources to the clubhouse. But ultimately, the result is the same on satisfy frustrated data users, data providers, um, you know, with lack of ability to innovate quickly on relevant data and have have have an experience that they deserve toe have have a delightful experience off discovering and exploring data that they trust. And all of that was still a missed so something something else more fundamentally needed to change than just the technology. >>So then the linchpin to your scenario is this notion of context and you you pointed out you made the other observation that look, we've made our operational systems context aware. But our data platforms are not on bond like CRM system sales guys very comfortable with what's in the CRM system. They own the data. So let's talk about the answer that you and your colleagues are proposing. You're essentially flipping the architecture whereby those domain knowledge workers, the builders, if you will, of data products or data services there now, first class citizens in the data flow and they're injecting by design domain knowledge into the system. So So I wanna put up another one of your charts. Guys, bring up the figure to their, um it talks about, you know, convergence. You showed data distributed domain, dream and architecture. Er this self serve platform design and this notion of product thinking. So maybe you could explain why this approach is is so desirable, in your view, >>sure. The motivation and inspiration for the approach came from studying what has happened over the last few decades in operational systems. We had a very similar problem prior to micro services with monolithic systems, monolithic systems where you know the bottleneck. Um, the changes we needed to make was always, you know, our fellow Noto, how the architecture was centralized and we found a nice nation. I'm not saying this is the perfect way of decoupling a monolith, but it's a way that currently where we are in our journey to become data driven, um is a nice place to be, um, which is distribution or decomposition off your system as well as organization. I think when we whenever we talk about systems, we've got to talk about people and teams that's responsible for managing those systems. So the decomposition off the systems and the teams on the data around domains because that's how today we are decoupling our business, right? We're decoupling our businesses around domains, and that's a that's a good thing and that What does that do really for us? What it does? Is it localizes change to the bounded context of fact business. It creates clear boundary and interfaces and contracts between the rest of the universe of the organization on that particular team, so removes the friction that often we have for both managing the change and both serving data or capability. So it's the first principle of data meshes. Let's decouple this world off analytical data the same to mirror the same way we have to couple their systems and teams and business why data is any different. And the moment you do that, So you, the moment you bring the ownership to people who understands the data best, then you get questions that well, how is that any different from silence that's connected databases that we have today and nobody can get to the data? So then the rest of the principles is really to address all of the challenges that comes with this first principle of decomposition around domain Context on the second principle is well, we have to expect a certain level off quality and accountability and responsibility for the teams that provide the data. So let's bring product thinking and treating data as a product to the data that these teams now, um share and let's put accountability around. And we need a new set of incentives and metrics for domain teams to share the data. We need to have a new set off kind of quality metrics that define what it means for the data to be a product. And we can go through that conversation perhaps later eso then the second principle is okay. The teams now that are responsible, the domain teams responsible for the analytical data need to provide that data with a certain level of quality and assurance. Let's call that a product and bring products thinking to that. And then the next question you get asked off by C. E. O s or city or the people who build the infrastructure and, you know, spend the money. They said, Well, it's actually quite complex to manage big data, and now we're We want everybody, every independent team to manage the full stack of, you know, storage and computation and pipelines and, you know, access, control and all of that. And that's well, we have solved that problem in operational world. And that requires really a new level of platform thinking toe provide infrastructure and tooling to the domain teams to now be able to manage and serve their big data. And that I think that requires reimagining the world of our tooling and technology. But for now, let's just assume that we need a new level of abstraction to hide away ton of complexity that unnecessarily people get exposed to and that that's the third principle of creating Selves of infrastructure, um, to allow autonomous teams to build their domains. But then the last pillar, the last you know, fundamental pillar is okay. Once you distributed problem into a smaller problems that you found yourself with another set of problems, which is how I'm gonna connect this data, how I'm gonna you know, that the insights happens and emerges from the interconnection of the data domains right? It does not necessarily locked into one domain. So the concerns around interoperability and standardization and getting value as a result of composition and interconnection of these domains requires a new approach to governance. And we have to think about governance very differently based on a Federated model and based on a computational model. Like once we have this powerful self serve platform, we can computational e automate a lot of governance decisions. Um, that security decisions and policy decisions that applies to you know, this fabric of mesh not just a single domain or not in a centralized. Also, really. As you mentioned that the most important component of the emissions distribution of ownership and distribution of architecture and data the rest of them is to solve all the problems that come with that. >>So very powerful guys. We actually have a picture of what Jamaat just described. Bring up, bring up figure three, if you would tell me it. Essentially, you're advocating for the pushing of the pipeline and all its various functions into the lines of business and abstracting that complexity of the underlying infrastructure, which you kind of show here in this figure, data infrastructure is a platform down below. And you know what I love about this Jama is it to me, it underscores the data is not the new oil because I could put oil in my car I can put in my house, but I can't put the same court in both places. But I think you call it polyglot data, which is really different forms, batch or whatever. But the same data data doesn't follow the laws of scarcity. I can use the same data for many, many uses, and that's what this sort of graphic shows. And then you brought in the really important, you know, sticking problem, which is that you know the governance which is now not a command and control. It's it's Federated governance. So maybe you could add some thoughts on that. >>Sure, absolutely. It's one of those I think I keep referring to data much as a paradigm shift. And it's not just to make it sound ground and, you know, like, kind of ground and exciting or in court. And it's really because I want to point out, we need to question every moment when we make a decision around how we're going to design security or governance or modeling off the data, we need to reflect and go back and say, um, I applying some of my cognitive biases around how I have worked for the last 40 years, I have seen it work. Or do I do I really need to question. And we do need to question the way we have applied governance. I think at the end of the day, the rule of the data governance and objective remains the same. I mean, we all want quality data accessible to a diverse set of users. And these users now have different personas, like David, Personal data, analyst data, scientists, data application, Um, you know, user, very diverse personal. So at the end of the day, we want quality data accessible to them, um, trustworthy in in an easy consumable way. Um, however, how we get there looks very different in as you mentioned that the governance model in the old world has been very commander control, very centralized. Um, you know, they were responsible for quality. They were responsible for certification off the data, you know, applying making sure the data complies. But also such regulations Make sure you know, data gets discovered and made available in the world of the data mesh. Really. The job of the data governance as a function becomes finding that equilibrium between what decisions need to be um, you know, made and enforced globally. And what decisions need to be made locally so that we can have an interoperable measure. If data sets that can move fast and can change fast like it's really about instead of hardest, you know, kind of putting the putting those systems in a straitjacket of being constant and don't change, embrace, change and continuous change of landscape because that's that's just the reality we can't escape. So the role of governance really the governance model called Federated and Computational. And by that I mean, um, every domain needs to have a representative in the governance team. So the role of the data or domain data product owner who really were understand the data that domain really well but also wears that hacks of a product owner. It is an important role that had has to have a representation in the governance. So it's a federation off domains coming together, plus the SMEs and people have, you know, subject matter. Experts who understands the regulations in that environmental understands the data security concerns, but instead off trying to enforce and do this as a central team. They make decisions as what need to be standardized, what need to be enforced. And let's push that into that computational E and in an automated fashion into the into the camp platform itself. For example, instead of trying to do that, you know, be part of the data quality pipeline and inject ourselves as people in that process, let's actually, as a group, define what constitutes quality, like, how do we measure quality? And then let's automate that and let Z codify that into the platform so that every native products will have a C I City pipeline on as part of that pipeline. Those quality metrics gets validated and every day to product needs to publish those SLOC or service level objectives. So you know, whatever we choose as a measure of quality, maybe it's the, you know, the integrity of the data, the delay in the data, the liveliness of it, whatever the are the decisions that you're making, let's codify that. So it's, um, it's really, um, the role of the governance. The objectives of the governance team tried to satisfies the same, but how they do it. It is very, very different. I wrote a new article recently trying to explain the logical architecture that would emerge from applying these principles. And I put a kind of light table to compare and contrast the roll off the You know how we do governance today versus how we will do it differently to just give people a flavor of what does it mean to embrace the centralization? And what does it mean to embrace change and continuous change? Eso hopefully that that that could be helpful. >>Yes, very so many questions I haven't but the point you make it to data quality. Sometimes I feel like quality is the end game. Where is the end game? Should be how fast you could go from idea to monetization with the data service. What happens again? You sort of address this, but what happens to the underlying infrastructure? I mean, spinning a PC to S and S three buckets and my pie torches and tensor flows. And where does that that lives in the business? And who's responsible for that? >>Yeah, that's I'm glad you're asking this question. Maybe because, um, I truly believe we need to re imagine that world. I think there are many pieces that we can use Aziz utilities on foundational pieces, but I but I can see for myself a 5 to 7 year roadmap of building this new tooling. I think, in terms of the ownership, the question around ownership, if that would remains with the platform team, but and perhaps the domain agnostic, technology focused team right that there are providing instead of products themselves. And but the products are the users off those products are data product developers, right? Data domain teams that now have really high expectations in terms of low friction in terms of lead time to create a new data product. Eso We need a new set off tooling, and I think with the language needs to shift from, You know, I need a storage buckets. So I need a storage account. So I need a cluster to run my, you know, spark jobs, too. Here's the declaration of my data products. This is where the data for it will come from. This is the data that I want to serve. These are the policies that I need toe apply in terms of perhaps encryption or access control. Um, go make it happen. Platform, go provision, Everything that I mean so that as a data product developer. All I can focus on is the data itself, representation of semantic and representation of the syntax. And make sure that data meets the quality that I have that I have to assure and it's available. The rest of provisioning of everything that sits underneath will have to get taken care of by the platform. And that's what I mean by requires a re imagination and in fact, Andi, there will be a data platform team, the data platform teams that we set up for our clients. In fact, themselves have a favorite of complexity. Internally, they divide into multiple teams multiple planes, eso there would be a plane, as in a group of capabilities that satisfied that data product developer experience, there would be a set of capabilities that deal with those need a greatly underlying utilities. I call it at this point, utilities, because to me that the level of abstraction of the platform is to go higher than where it is. So what we call platform today are a set of utilities will be continuing to using will be continuing to using object storage, will continue using relation of databases and so on so there will be a plane and a group of people responsible for that. There will be a group of people responsible for capabilities that you know enable the mesh level functionality, for example, be able to correlate and connects. And query data from multiple knows. That's a measure level capability to be able to discover and explore the measure data products as a measure of capability. So it would be set of teams as part of platforms with a strong again platform product thinking embedded and product ownership embedded into that. To satisfy the experience of this now business oriented domain data team teams s way have a lot of work to do. >>I could go on. Unfortunately, we're out of time. But I guess my first I want to tell people there's two pieces that you put out so far. One is, uh, how to move beyond a monolithic data lake to a distributed data mesh. You guys should read that in a data mesh principles and logical architectures kind of part two. I guess my last question in the very limited time we have is our organization is ready for this. >>E think the desire is there I've bean overwhelmed with number off large and medium and small and private and public governments and federal, you know, organizations that reached out to us globally. I mean, it's not This is this is a global movement and I'm humbled by the response of the industry. I think they're the desire is there. The pains are really people acknowledge that something needs to change. Here s so that's the first step. I think that awareness isa spreading organizations. They're more and more becoming aware. In fact, many technology providers are reach out to us asking what you know, what shall we do? Because our clients are asking us, You know, people are already asking We need the data vision. We need the tooling to support. It s oh, that awareness is there In terms of the first step of being ready, However, the ingredients of a successful transformation requires top down and bottom up support. So it requires, you know, support from Chief Data Analytics officers or above the most successful clients that we have with data. Make sure the ones that you know the CEOs have made a statement that, you know, we want to change the experience of every single customer using data and we're going to do, we're going to commit to this. So the investment and support, you know, exists from top to all layers. The engineers are excited that maybe perhaps the traditional data teams are open to change. So there are a lot of ingredients. Substance to transformation is to come together. Um, are we really ready for it? I think I think the pioneers, perhaps the innovators. If you think about that innovation, careful. My doctors, probably pioneers and innovators and leaders. Doctors are making making move towards it. And hopefully, as the technology becomes more available, organizations that are less or in, you know, engineering oriented, they don't have the capability in house today, but they can buy it. They would come next. Maybe those are not the ones who aren't quite ready for it because the technology is not readily available. Requires, you know, internal investment today. >>I think you're right on. I think the leaders are gonna lead in hard, and they're gonna show us the path over the next several years. And I think the the end of this decade is gonna be defined a lot differently than the beginning. Jammeh. Thanks so much for coming in. The Cuban. Participate in the >>program. Pleasure head. >>Alright, Keep it right. Everybody went back right after this short break.