> Why doesn't the financial industry consider a public blockchain? - Unnecessary uncertainty: public blockchains can fork (i.e. ethereum) or change (bitcoin bl

> Why doesn't the financial industry consider a public blockchain? - 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.