Transparency is always a sliding scale, and right now there is very little transparancy with regards to who owns what stock and how much of it. The system is cu

Transparency is always a sliding scale, and right now there is very little transparancy with regards to who owns what stock and how much of it. The system is currently more paper based than digitally reconcilled. And the onus is on every financial firm (bank, hedge fund, brokerage, settlement house, etc.) to maintain their own books and report back as best they feel inclined to. What they volunatarily report back can be ammended, or late. And when you add up all the human induced delays / data entry mistakes, what the public has available to look at can be months out of date or just plain wrong. In principal, yes, the trusted parties could have stepped up and implemented a more transparant and automated system. No, they did not need to base such a solution on a blockchain. But the reality is that they were not inclined to change the status-quo, and now we find ourselves in a world where every relevant financial system is looking at, testing, or in the process of rolling out a blockchain based solution. For anyone asking where the value in the technology lies, the proof is in how seriously the large players [1] are taking it. [1] just one of the many public facing examples of a blockchain-based stock market (under the CHESS replacement program): https://www2.asx.com.au/markets/clearing-and-settlement-services/chess-replacement/about-chess-replacement https://www2.asx.com.au/markets/clearing-and-settlement-serv...