51–60 of 93 posts
This probably means that they couldn't find a problem worth solving with blockchain. Not a good sign for blockchain companies in 2017, expect to see more big names ditching blockchains and hype train finally coming to a stop. I predict we will see a huge hammer come down from SEC & IRS surrounding ICOs in 2017 as well.
Regulatory 63%
Compliance 56%
Security 31%
Cost 19%
http://qz.com/823739/accenture-blockchain-banking-survey-no-...
I think we've to overcome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt to embrace blockchain
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why doesn't the financial industry consider a public blockchain? How do big financial companies consider resolving adversity like judgments/liens/etc against an settlement based system that's an automaton?
Accounting, auditing and compliance are a massive cost for business globally. (Fines alone have cost banking $200 billion since 2009.) Blockchain accounting could help cut those costs. For example, instead of a company employing its own auditors to examine the books of its various units, all transactions could be logged on an internal blockchain, and recorded centrally. Likewise, external auditors or even regulators…
I can't say I'm all that surprised. R3 serves as both an R&D lab and a place to connect vendors and potential clients. Moreover, the focus is on private/permissioned blockchain tech. The tech in this space is still quite immature overall and pretty much everyone has had a hard time building actual blockchain infrastructure vs things that are sorta like a blockchain. If you can't show clients value for their membershi…
Why doesn't the financial industry consider a public blockchain? How do big financial companies consider resolving adversity like judgments/liens/etc against an settlement based system that's an automaton?
- Unnecessary uncertainty: public blockchains can fork (i.e. ethereum) or change (bitcoin block size debate, segwit, etc) unrelated to your needs.
- Dealing with forks, and various other behaviors adds lots of unnecessary complexity.
- Less secure since publicly open for anyone to attack.
- Constrained feature development that requires consideration of all actors.
- Slower and more expensive: public blockchains require world-leading mining power and lots of time (60+ mins, 6 confirmations) to remain secure from government-scale attacks.
- If proof of stake is used (untested), instead of proof of work, to mitigate the cost and time issues, then you introduce many unrelated actors influencing core aspects of your business.
I can't see why a private consortium of banks would replace their currently custom, private, controlled databases and code, with public ones.
> How do big financial companies consider resolving adversity like judgments/liens/etc against an settlement based system that's an automaton?
The system isn't an automation, there are still the same decisions being made, they are just being recorded in a smarter way that cuts out a lot of unnecessary verification/trust work. They still have relationships with each other, each other's identities, and legal agreements enforcing all their actions. If funds need to be returned, a new transaction is created to return them. Liens can be coded into assets for convenience, etc. Any automation they choose to add in smart-contract type things is optional, and can be done gradually.
Without all the public features, the core blockchain becomes very simple, basically a chronological db of signed transactions - but it still gets to keeep the sexy name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why doesn't the financial industry consider a public blockchain? How do big financial companies consider resolving adversity like judgments/liens/etc against an settlement based system that's an automaton?
Financial companies and banks already trust each other. It doesn't make sense for them to be held under public scrutiny with a public ledger. Therefore, blockchain is a solution without a problem for financial institutions. Their needs are already well met and there's little incentive to change. It worked for a 1000+ years why uproot everything for a buzzword ? Of course they aren't going to change.
http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-london/lond...
These were the meeting places in which the maritime insurance deals were made at a time of increasing maritime exploration by the British. These also evolved to be the places such materials were bought and sold - and in fact the trading pits were (and in some cases are) based on these gathering locations.
It's interesting to visit the London Metal Exchange which although computerised has the trader pit (complete with circular sofa) in which trades are still conducted between traders.
In an interesting turn of fate the very docks that the traders made possible subsequently collapsed with the introduction of container shipping and ships which were too large to navigate the Thames, and pushed shipping ports to the periphery of the country. In an ironic twist of fate these docks then became the Docklands and home to London's financial district.
Right up until Brexit, when the financial centre was destroyed by petty minded little England, ending four hundred years of global outlook for the sake of believing in lies.
This probably means that they couldn't find a problem worth solving with blockchain. Not a good sign for blockchain companies in 2017, expect to see more big names ditching blockchains and hype train finally coming to a stop. I predict we will see a huge hammer come down from SEC & IRS surrounding ICOs in 2017 as well.
Blockchain could provide “near-real-time” transactions to speed up the foreign exchange market http://qz.com/779660/goldman-sachs-wants-to-put-foreign-exch...
But the question is if a blockchain system can save enough to justify migrating the whole process. It doesn't seem like it at the moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was my understanding that (and especially absent a central bank) the US economy became prone to frequent and periodic economic panics, uncontrolled periods of inflation and deflation, and general financial instability.
As opposed to now, when we have frequent bubbles and bursts and more inflation? It's hard to say what's better.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflat...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why doesn't the financial industry consider a public blockchain? How do big financial companies consider resolving adversity like judgments/liens/etc against an settlement based system that's an automaton?
Financial companies and banks already trust each other. It doesn't make sense for them to be held under public scrutiny with a public ledger. Therefore, blockchain is a solution without a problem for financial institutions. Their needs are already well met and there's little incentive to change. It worked for a 1000+ years why uproot everything for a buzzword ? Of course they aren't going to change.
This is definitely not true. It takes some financial assets 3-5 days to settle after the initial transaction goes through, weaving its way through many database systems (some many decades old) and middlemen who each take a cut, e.g. clearing houses. Any established industry has lots of cruft that builds up.
For this reason Santander estimates that banks can save $15-20bn per year collectively by using blockchain technologies to make their infrastructure more efficient[1][2]
[1] http://www.coindesk.com/santander-blockchain-tech-can-save-b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GS didn't receive any direct bailout funds. Only what it received via AIG which wasn't all that much.
This is incorrect. Goldman Sachs received $10B which they repaid. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-04-14-tarp...
GS paid the money back literally as soon as they were allowed to.
