- Banks and financial systems use COBOL/FORTRAN not because they want to, but because the systems are decades old, the knowledge of how it works often lost, and

- Banks and financial systems use COBOL/FORTRAN not because they want to, but because the systems are decades old, the knowledge of how it works often lost, and making small changes or adding new features could lead to catastrophic failure[1][2][3]. Crypto on the other hand tends to be on the cutting edge of cryptography and heavily reliant on open source. Despite crypto systems having a better bedrock than a bank trying to maintain their multimillion lines of COBOL spaghetti, I can agree that many end-user applications in crypto do not provide better security than today's banks (e.g. MetaMask hot wallet storing user private keys in the cloud). - The ledger is generally considered immutable; but the platforms and protocols built on top of it need not be. Social consensus can pivot to a new contract address. An analogy would be a git commit; you can update the head of your codebase, but your past changes are still present and analyzable. - Better support for zero-knowledge proofs would be the eventual end goal for many of these systems, allowing users to shield data and maintain their privacy. I agree that not every transaction should be public, and it's a limitation of current crypto currencies that will likely take several years to solve. [1] https://federalnewsnetwork.com/tom-temin-commentary/2020/01/irs-programming-mystery-continues/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/tom-temin-commentary/2020/01/... [2] https://increment.com/programming-languages/cobol-all-the-way-down/ https://increment.com/programming-languages/cobol-all-the-wa... [2] https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-ca/magazine/cobol-controls-your-money https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-ca/magazine/cobol-controls-y...