3 ms·

Fintech didn't have enough innovation analogous to the available capital in contrast to other industries which were saturated. A seemingly holy grail appeared a

by kbody 10y ago

Fintech didn't have enough innovation analogous to the available capital in contrast to other industries which were saturated. A seemingly holy grail appeared and FOMO was at its peak last year or so. I think the problem so far is that while they talk about blockchains (which in my opinion and in the banking context is an immutable P2P database that no-one owns but everyone obeys) they still are afraid of such concept because of the loss of control compared to the current models. They found a nice golden engine but can't decide what kind of vehicle they want to make due to tradeoffs. Banking context aside, the FOMO also happened with countless of clueless "entrepreneurs" that jump on the blockchain-wagon without a clear and most of all fitting purpose. For the legit cases, you have legacy laws and systems being the challenge which always takes a horrible amount of time.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
I don't think the loss-of-control narrative holds. One, global banks aren't nearly that coördinated (within or without). Two, algorithmic and prop desks are examples of banks willingly giving up control to make more money. The issues with the blockchain are it's unpredictable and, as someone else mentioned, difficult to trace responsibility on. That matters in a legal system with a concept of fault. Blockchain finance doesn't yet make sense somewhere like the UK or America because our systems are too deep and storied. They could have a leg up on existing institutions in places like India or Italy or Russia, where the current system is crap. That said, I'm still waiting for a blockchain start-up to run its cap table on a blockchain.
vonmoltke 10y ago
> I think the problem so far is that while they talk about blockchains (which in my opinion and in the banking context is an immutable P2P database that no-one owns but everyone obeys) they still are afraid of such concept because of the loss of control compared to the current models. I think the bigger issue is loss of control over whether there will be a particular blockchain in the future. The current system relies on enough independent parties being willing to participate. If participation is subject to the whims of tech fancy, a financial institution could be left holding the bag on a suddenly worthless chain.

by kbody 10y ago

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

I don't think the loss-of-control narrative holds. One, global banks aren't nearly that coördinated (within or without). Two, algorithmic and prop desks are examples of banks willingly giving up control to make more money. The issues with the blockchain are it's unpredictable and, as someone else mentioned, difficult to trace responsibility on. That matters in a legal system with a concept of fault. Blockchain finance doesn't yet make sense somewhere like the UK or America because our systems are too deep and storied. They could have a leg up on existing institutions in places like India or Italy or Russia, where the current system is crap. That said, I'm still waiting for a blockchain start-up to run its cap table on a blockchain.

vonmoltke 10y ago

> I think the problem so far is that while they talk about blockchains (which in my opinion and in the banking context is an immutable P2P database that no-one owns but everyone obeys) they still are afraid of such concept because of the loss of control compared to the current models. I think the bigger issue is loss of control over whether there will be a particular blockchain in the future. The current system relies on enough independent parties being willing to participate. If participation is subject to the whims of tech fancy, a financial institution could be left holding the bag on a suddenly worthless chain.