How big banks could decentralise money

One effect of the emergence of cryptocurrency is that it has made a lot of people rethink our relationship with currency generally, and with the big banking institutions.

For example, in June 2018, Switzerland held a “sovereign money” referendum in which Swiss citizens rejected by a ratio of three to one a proposal to end fractional reserve banking and give sole money-creation authority to the Swiss National Bank. Cryptocurrency wasn’t mentioned in the proposals, but it was on many people’s minds during this vote.

Why? Because the fact that cryptocurrency exists means that there is a very real possibility that global economies will “disintermediate banks from money” as Michael J. Casey suggests, and he also claims that the leaders of this change will not be the activists one typically associates with bitcoin and other crypto assets, it will be the central banks themselves.

They will initiate the move towards a true “money of the people”, because they will have to in order to “remain relevant in a post-crisis, post-trust, digitally connected global economy.”

A non-governmental currency

This might be an anarchist’s dream situation, but for those who want money removed from government control, the move to digital currencies will encourage more competition worldwide by opening the door more non-governmental digital currencies. Plus, when smart contracts are used to manage exchange rate volatility, it is likely that we will find that the people and businesses involved in international trade will no longer need to rely on the dollar, Euro or British pound as the cross-border currencies of choice.

There hasn’t been much enthusiasm for a central bank-issued digital currency (CBDC), largely because the banks didn’t really like the idea. The Bank of England has done research into the concept, but BoE governor, Mark Carney then warned about financial instability if his bank supplied digital wallets to every citizen, because this would then give the man in the street the same right as regulated commercial banks to hold reserves at a national bank.

Inefficient banks

Basically, traditional banks are the problem and not just for cryptocurrencies; they are inefficient with respect to fiat money as well. Their technical, social and regulatory infrastructure is past its sell by date and it’s a costly system. Banks maintain centralised, non-interoperable databases on outdated, mainframes. They rely on multiple intermediaries to process payments, plus ledgers that have to be reconciled against each other using time-consuming fraud-prevention mechanisms.

Banking solutions

There are solutions though: one is to gradually introduce CBDC stating with non-bank financial institutions and cascading it down through corporations and smaller business to individuals. A central bank set CBDC interest rate would also help and could be part of managing the money supply. It is more likely that this will happen first in the developing world where there is a greater need and appetite for something like a fiat digital currency that offers protection from inflation. In the developed world, the banks may take longer to get their heads around the concept of moving away from decades old systems, but they will have to respond somehow, because the crypto genie is out of the bottle.

 

 

 

 

 

The case for decentralisation

Image result for decentralisation

Centralisation came in the second phase of Internet development. In the first phase of the web, Internet services were built on open protocols, but by the time of the new millennium this was rapidly changing to centralised platforms. Firms like Google and Amazon, Facebook and Apple (GAFA) designed software that outpaced the open protocols, and once smartphones arrived, the trend picked up speed.

The centralisation effect

What then happened is that startups found it much harder to grow their businesses online, because of the dominance of centralised platforms that could change the rules at any moment and take away the newcomers’ audience. Innovation has been stifled and the Internet environment is less dynamic because of it. Furthermore, centralisation has aided the rise of fake news and the numerous debates over privacy and biased algorithms.

One response to centralisation might be to impose government regulation on the largest Internet companies, but the problem here is that the web is software based, which means the networks can be redesigned to exploit market forces. So, this type of solution is not of much benefit.

Decentralisation is the answer

Cryptonetworks are a decentralised solution. They are governed by communities and have the potential to outperform centralised platforms.  The reason they are an answer is that they behave in a different way to those platforms that are centralised. For example, when a  centralised platform starts up they do everything they can to recruit users and third-parties like developers, businesses, and media organisations to give the service added value. Facebook is a good example of this. As platforms like this move up the adoption S-curve, their power over users and third parties steadily grows. Again, look at Facebook.

Cryptonetworks operate in a very different way. These decentralised networks “ use consensus mechanisms such as blockchains to maintain and update state, 2) use cryptocurrencies (coins/tokens) to incentivize consensus participants (miners/validators) and other network participants,” as Chris Dixon suggests.

Other advantages are that they also stay neutral as they grow, and use open source protocols, whereas centralised platforms use a ‘bait and switch’ approach. Users have a voice via the community that governs the decentralised network and users work together towards a common goal – community growth and strengthening the token’s value.

Ultimately, the question of whether decentralized or centralized systems will win the third era of the Internet depends on who is going to build the most compelling products. The entrepreneurs working on decentralised platforms are up against the strong cash flow of Google etc, but on the other hand they also have a growing fan base that will provide robust support.  Decentralisation also provides a more level playing field for third-party developers and businesses, and that could well be one of its biggest advantages.

 

 

 

5 ways blockchain can save the environment

Blockchain technology is primarily associated with cryptocurrency, smart contracts, fintech and so on, but there are ways in which this new technology can solve environmental problems, and could potentially reverse climate change.

Blockchains they are particularly interesting for environmental causes, because they make it possible to track and verify transactions and interactions without a centralised authority. We can use this to increase transparency, accountability, and efficiency of environmental projects.

Here are five examples of how it could be used.

  1. Recycling

People are often not incentivised to participate in recycling. And, as most cities are responsible for their own recycling programmes, there is no way to compare their effectiveness. A recycling program on the blockchain could encourage participation by giving a financial reward in the form of a cryptographic token in exchange for depositing recyclables like plastic containers, cans, or bottles. These schemes already exist in some parts of Europe.

  1. Energy

Traditional power grids are centralised, which can create inefficiencies in energy distribution, like having unused surplus. A peer-to-peer blockchain based energy system would reduce the need to transmit electricity over long distances, and thus reduce loss and energy storage requirements. It could also encourage companies and people to get returns from investing in renewable energy.

  1. Environmental charities

It can be difficult to track how money donated to a charity is spent. Blockchain technology can ensure that money intended to be used as a reward for conservation, or a payment to a specific cause, does not disappear into the wrong places.

  1. Carbon footprint tax

Currently, the environmental impact of each product is difficult to determine, and its carbon footprint is not factored into the price. Consumers are given little price incentive to buy products with a low carbon footprint. A blockchain-based reputation system could give each company and product a score based on the carbon footprint of the products they sell.

  1. Consumer incentives

It can be difficult for individuals or companies to see the direct effects of their actions. Therefore, the incentives for acting in an environmentally sustainable way aren’t always clear, especially in the short term. Blockchain technology can be used to track data, such as carbon footprints and incentives created that encourage people and companies to act in a sustainable way through tokenised rewards for specific actions.

 

The Two Doors of Crypto Perception

You may have seen a photo of a dress circulating on social media last year. People were asked what colour the dress was. Some saw white and gold, some lilac and gold, and others saw blue and black. The post demonstrated that perception is not universal, and the same can be said about cryptocurrency and blockchain technology, which can be viewed through two lenses.

Data and code first

There are those who perceive the technology to be the most important aspect of this new space and the one that will outlast all other aspects. Some people see the blockchain as a gigantic network of global computers working on the decentralised principle. Most often these ‘believers’ are software designers and developers who are focused on code and data. They see lots of potential in the blockchain for implementing new forms of software with new capabilities. It offers them data storage that is resistant to censorship and is immutable. It can also be audited and the code can’t be changed once it’s in use. This is one group, but there is another.

New money

Another group perceives the technology as merely a tool that is necessary to create a new form of money. This group is more likely to be made up of people from backgrounds in economics and finance. They look at it from a perspective of the history of money and bring the idea that all forms of money have specific properties: resistant to forgery, secure, durable, measurable and divisible. So this group sees cryptocurrency as a new version of ‘sound money’. Some of them are sceptical about fiat currencies and aren’t fans of centrally controlled monetary policies. They see cryptocurrencies as a revolutionary new form of global money and the antidote to what they see as the questionable modern experiment of fiat currency.

The bigger picture

What does this leave us with? One group see crytpocurrency as the single useful purpose of the blockchain, while the other sees cryptocurrency as just one component in what the blockchain can do.

The ‘new money’ group actively buy cryptocurrencies and want to encourage mass adoption so the value of the coins increases. The blockchain-focused group is more enthusiastic about projects that experiment, add features, and explore the blockchain tradeoff-space.

But, what we can take away from this is that both views complement each other and one keeps the other in check. There is room for both perspectives and those working in the crypto space would do well to take a step back and take in a wider perspective that includes the views of both these groups to see exactly where the crypto space is heading.