by The Economist reports about initiatives by commercial and central banks that aim at adopting the blockchain technology. For commercial banks, distributed ledgers promise various advantages—but they also cause problems: Instead of having to keep track of their assets in separate databases, as financial firms do now, they can share just one. Trades can be settled almost instantly, without the need for lots of intermediaries. As a result, less capital is tied up during a transaction, reducing risk. Such ledgers also make it easier to comply with anti-money-laundering and other regulations, since they provide a record of all past transactions (which is why regulators are so keen on them). … Yet … [o]ne stumbling block is what geeks call “scalability”: today’s distributed ledgers cannot handle huge numbers of transactions. Another is confidentiality: encryption techniques that allow distributed ledgers to work while keeping trading patterns, say, private are only now being developed. … Such technical hurdles can be overcome only with a high degree of co-operation … Meanwhile, central banks plan digital currencies built around the same technology. Like bitcoin, these would be built around a database listing who owns what. Unlike bitcoin’s, though, these “distributed ledgers” would … be tightly controlled by the issuers of the currency.
Topics:
Dirk Niepelt considers the following as important: *, Bank, Bitcoin, Blockchain, Cash, Central Bank, Central clearing house, currency, Distributed ledger, Notes, Privacy, Reserves
This could be interesting, too:
Dirk Niepelt writes “Report by the Parliamentary Investigation Committee on the Conduct of the Authorities in the Context of the Emergency Takeover of Credit Suisse”
Fintechnews Switzerland writes Swiss Bitcoin App Relai Raises USM Funding, Eyes MiCA License for EU Growth
investrends.ch writes Bitcoin – Rekord liegt jetzt bei mehr als 106’000 Dollar
Claudio Grass writes “THE BIG BULL MARKET IN GOLD AND SILVER HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN”
The Economist reports about initiatives by commercial and central banks that aim at adopting the blockchain technology.
For commercial banks, distributed ledgers promise various advantages—but they also cause problems:
Instead of having to keep track of their assets in separate databases, as financial firms do now, they can share just one. Trades can be settled almost instantly, without the need for lots of intermediaries. As a result, less capital is tied up during a transaction, reducing risk. Such ledgers also make it easier to comply with anti-money-laundering and other regulations, since they provide a record of all past transactions (which is why regulators are so keen on them).
… Yet … [o]ne stumbling block is what geeks call “scalability”: today’s distributed ledgers cannot handle huge numbers of transactions. Another is confidentiality: encryption techniques that allow distributed ledgers to work while keeping trading patterns, say, private are only now being developed. … Such technical hurdles can be overcome only with a high degree of co-operation …
Meanwhile, central banks plan digital currencies built around the same technology.
Like bitcoin, these would be built around a database listing who owns what. Unlike bitcoin’s, though, these “distributed ledgers” would … be tightly controlled by the issuers of the currency.
The plans involve letting individuals and firms open accounts at the central bank …
Central banks … could save on printing costs if people held more bits and fewer banknotes. Digital currency would be tougher to forge, though a successful cyber-attack would be catastrophic. Digital central-bank money could even, in theory, replace cash. …
Better yet, whereas bundles of banknotes can be moved without trace, electronic payments cannot. … The technology first developed to free money from the grip of central bankers may soon be used to tighten their control.