Tech Talks Daily

What happens behind the scenes when a cross-border payment uses stablecoins, and how much of that should the customer need to understand?
In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Shah Ramezani, co-founder and CEO of Noah, about the infrastructure that connects stablecoins to business payments. The discussion goes beyond the transfer itself to the practical work required to move between currencies, choose a route, verify identities, and reconcile the result.
Shah starts with the friction he sees in correspondent banking and the opportunity for a different settlement layer. He explains how stablecoins can move quickly between participants and then connect to local payment methods at either end. His example of a payment from the United States to Argentina helps explain the choices involved, including whether the recipient wants local currency or a dollar-denominated stablecoin. It is an illustrative scenario rather than a named customer case or a universal comparison of costs and delivery times.
I ask what makes that experience work technically. Shah breaks the process into liquidity, routing, compliance, settlement, and reconciliation. The available partner, customer type, destination, and pricing can all affect how a payment is handled. Noah's role, as he describes it, is to bring those components together so partners can connect without building every part themselves.
Identity is another part of the conversation. Shah discusses know-your-customer and know-your-business checks, including arrangements in which partners rely on checks performed by Noah and receive the information they need. His account makes clear that reducing repeated document requests requires coordination among the organizations involved. It also raises questions about who is responsible for each step and how that responsibility changes across markets.
One idea I found most interesting is that users may encounter stablecoin infrastructure without choosing to hold or handle stablecoins themselves. Shah describes payments in which the technology operates behind a familiar interface. For a business considering that approach, the useful comparison is the full payment journey, including conversion, local payout, support, and each participant's obligations.
We also discuss banks' continuing role. Shah rejects the idea that they disappear and instead describes a different distribution of responsibilities across payment networks and financial institutions. The conversation gives listeners a way to consider how new settlement technology can coexist with established banking relationships.
Trust and regulation remain part of that assessment. Shah argues that stronger regulation provides reassurance, while acknowledging the difficulty of serving customers across jurisdictions with different reporting obligations, identity requirements, and fraud patterns. His confidence in the market's direction is his perspective. It should not be read as a guarantee that every stablecoin, provider, or transaction carries the same protections.
Finally, Shah discusses Noah's plans to broaden its capabilities and invest in product development and hiring. He describes an opportunity to make the payment experience simpler and less complex for the user. For me, the accompanying question is how providers make their responsibilities clear when the underlying process spans several organizations.
I would love to hear your thoughts, so please share your experiences. When you assess a new payment route, how do you weigh speed and cost against clarity about responsibility, access to funds, and help when something goes wrong?

What happens when the pressure to complete an ERP transformation leaves access governance waiting until after go-live?
In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Chris Radkowski, GRC Expert and Advisor at Pathlock, about the business consequences of access decisions.
Chris previously spent 17 years at SAP and brings experience across access control, governance and security. We discuss why ERP risk belongs in transformation planning, with examples that connect system availability to manufacturing, incoming deliveries and the processes that keep a business operating.
The conversation considers privileged access inside business applications. An identity does not need to administer a server to hold permissions that affect sensitive information, supplier records or financial transactions. 
Chris explains why the combinations of entitlements assigned to a person deserve attention, and how that assessment becomes more complicated as processes extend across several systems. AI agents and automated workflows add to the challenge when they can carry out transactions quickly or operate through credentials associated with a user.
We also discuss the limits of scheduled access reviews. Chris describes the work involved in checking whether an inappropriate permission was used, including the manual effort that can arise when teams need to investigate historical transactions. He argues for combining access information with activity and transaction data, so teams can examine an unexpected pattern and initiate a review rather than waiting for the next certification cycle.
For leaders planning an ERP or AI transformation, Chris recommends considering role design, access assignment, certification and emergency access early in the program. We discuss how changes between SAP ECC and S/4HANA can affect the permissions and transactions on which existing controls depend.
Our conversation offers practical questions about who can act, what they actually do and how the organization responds when operations are under pressure. 
Which access decisions would you want resolved before your next go-live, and where are the gaps today? Please share your thoughts with me.

What happens when an organization restores its systems after an incident but employees still cannot connect to them?
In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Sterling Wilson, Global Field CTO for Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery at IGEL, about the endpoint recovery gap. Sterling explains why a laptop that is encrypted, unstable or being preserved for investigation can prevent work from resuming even when applications and infrastructure are available. We discuss why continuity planning needs to account for the device people use to reach those services.
The conversation examines IGEL Emergency Mode, an administrator-led capability for supported IGEL Dual Boot-enabled endpoints. Sterling describes moving those devices into IGEL OS so employees can reach resources IT has approved while security teams continue investigating the Windows environment. He emphasizes that this is an alternative access path, rather than Windows repair, threat detection or a replacement for the wider incident response process.
I ask how organizations should prioritize employees and services during a disruption. Sterling recommends making those decisions around business functions and dependencies rather than seniority, with the priorities established before a crisis. We also discuss who has authority to initiate a transition, whether people can still sign in and reach their applications, and how a team returns devices to its chosen operating state afterward.
Sterling draws a distinction between a recovery time objective and the time it actually takes people to resume work. That brings the discussion back to testing, including scenarios where management systems, connectivity or other dependencies may be unavailable. For leaders assessing business resilience, the conversation offers a way to look beyond infrastructure status and examine whether the organization can deliver its services again. When did your team last test recovery from an employee's perspective, and what did it reveal? Please share your thoughts with me.

What does an investor actually own when a share becomes a token, and who keeps the official record accurate?
In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Dan Kramer, Chief Executive Officer of Equiniti, about the infrastructure behind tokenized securities.
While much of the discussion focuses on trading venues and settlement, Dan brings the conversation back to the record of ownership and the responsibilities of a transfer agent, or registrar in the UK. He explains why issuers want a consistent register rather than separate versions of ownership across different systems.
We discuss the difference between shares issued by a company and tokens created by a third party to represent an interest in an underlying asset. Dan explains why voting rights, information rights and exposure to another organization deserve attention when assessing a tokenized product.
We also consider how existing market infrastructure connects to this work and why the technology itself cannot answer every question about rights and responsibilities.
The conversation then turns to AI in shareholder services. I ask Dan about accountability when software assists with proxy voting, and we discuss the importance of being able to understand how decisions were reached.
He also shares Equiniti's approach to employee training and its ambition to make interactions with its systems available through natural language by the end of 2027. This is a future target, rather than a description of capabilities already available across the business.
Dan also discusses the planned Bullish acquisition and how the companies intend to bring together issuer relationships and blockchain infrastructure.
We close with a practical example of a customer portal moving from a Monday discussion to a Thursday delivery, illustrating his view of how development is changing.
For leaders assessing tokenization, the conversation offers useful questions about ownership, controls and the experience shareholders should receive. Which questions would your organization need answered before considering tokenized shares?
 Please share your thoughts with me.

What good is a new treatment if patients still struggle to get the approvals, appointments, and support needed to receive it?
In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Amir Sharif, president and co-founder of Leap, about the operational infrastructure behind specialty care. While AI in drug discovery attracts attention, the journey from a prescription to treatment often depends on disconnected organizations, incomplete information, and manual coordination. Amir describes how Leap combines drug sourcing, distribution, care coordination, and employer benefit arrangements to address some of those gaps.
His interest in patient experience grew through work helping build healthcare businesses including Care/of and Tend. Those experiences led him to question why everyday expectations around scheduling, pricing, and customer support can be so difficult to meet in healthcare. Specialty therapies bring another level of complexity because they can require clinical administration, recurring appointments, insurance authorization, and expensive medication procurement.
We look at what happens after a physician writes a prescription. Approval may depend on the patient's health plan, supporting medical information, an administering provider, and a permitted site of care. Coordinating those pieces can fall to the patient, even while they are dealing with an illness. Amir explains why access depends on the administrative process as well as the treatment itself.
Drug pricing provides another part of the picture. Under a buy and bill arrangement, a provider purchases a drug, administers it, and bills for it. Amir says the margin added to the acquisition cost can range from 40 percent to 400 percent. These are his reported figures rather than a finding independently established in this episode. He describes Leap's model as passing its drug acquisition cost to the employer or plan sponsor and coordinating administration through home infusion or partner clinical sites, depending on patient preference and clinical requirements.
The technology discussion becomes particularly practical when Amir describes the data behind identifying eligible patients. Leap receives feeds containing diagnosis codes, claims, and prior authorization information. Its data engine normalizes those feeds so the team can act on signals that a patient is receiving, or may soon be prescribed, a therapy within the program's scope. This is a care coordination process. Amir repeatedly says Leap does not replace the prescriber or take control of clinical treatment decisions.
He also describes an average patient encounter involving over 20 coordination touchpoints. Many external parties still communicate by email or fax rather than through software interfaces. Leap uses agentic workflows to support appointment scheduling, shipment tracking, and medical order processing. According to Amir, those workflows remain supervised by care teams, and patients speak with a person when they contact the service.
For business leaders assessing AI returns, his account of model costs is especially useful. Some workflows the team considered two quarters earlier would have cost tens or hundreds of dollars per run in token consumption, he says. As models become cheaper and more capable, different operational uses become viable. The interview does not provide a measured before and after cost comparison, so the lesson is about evaluating changing economics rather than declaring a proven return for every workflow.
Leap reports a patient Net Promoter Score of 92, with surveys sent after every encounter. Amir describes this as evidence of patient satisfaction, alongside feedback gathered by care teams. Satisfaction is useful, but it should not be confused with proof of improved clinical outcomes or faster treatment across every patient. Employers can request an impact analysis comparing historical claims with the proposed cost of Leap's service.
Where would you begin when assessing specialty care, the drug price, the time patients lose, or the coordination needed to keep treatment on track? Listen to the conversation and share your thoughts with me.