Musings from a thoughtful human - Latest Comments

Re: 10 Things You Should Know About Blockchains

Anonymous — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:39:00 -0000

11/09

Re: How will Brexit Impact Banks and Fintech in the UK?

WPTW — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 07:31:51 -0000

Is it possible to quantify what effect current EU legislation, regulation and directives actually have and have had on how UK regulation, fintech and banking has evolved and developed? Would it be wrong to think that the UK as a self regulator can/could now do whatever it takes to 'keep' the banks it has been home to? Just because UK is no longer the geographical gateway doesn't mean it couldn't establish other ways to compete with Frankfurt et al to maintain it's position as a hub.

Re: How will Brexit Impact Banks and Fintech in the UK?

Ruth Milligan — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 06:57:08 -0000

Excellent to hear some optimism for a change! The UK government has shown itself deeply committed to fintech and UK financial services policy is already ahead of EU laws in many areas (the open banking initiative leading in to PSD2, for example). I don't see the perfect fit of London and fintech being dislodged.

Re: How will Brexit Impact Banks and Fintech in the UK?

Elena Stavrova — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:49:06 -0000

The British banks can take advantage of the processes taking place in some sectors outside the Eurozone, such as the banking sector in Bulgaria. Here are merging and buying banks and a direct British investment, taking into account the English method of banking can be a good solution both for the two countries.

Re: Why Banks Are Sleepwalking Into Extinction And What To Do About It

Michael Tillcock — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:35:50 -0000

I think this is one of the most interesting blogs I have ever read.
There is real insight here and the point about the Reg/Digital skillsets rarely belonging to same person is so true and a real challenge.

Re: The 5 Myths Preventing Bank Fintech Innovation

Innovation Courses — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 03:25:43 -0000

If you'd like to submit a video it would be shown first on http://InnovationVideos.com and then people could create their own personal innovation course by choosing which videos will fit with what they would like to learn. Some of these videos could be the ones you submit on innovation, leadership, strategy, creativity, technology, etc.

Re: The 5 Myths Preventing Bank Fintech Innovation

Innovation Courses — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 23:38:10 -0000

We've been adding and organizing hundreds of innovation videos onto the InnovationCourses.org site. Do you have any videos that you'd like us to add? Perhaps you've done a Ted Talk, presentation, demo, shared some tips, etc. Or, maybe you have a video about innovation you would recommend to others.

Re: Think The Blockchain is Interesting But Bitcoin Isn’t? Think Again

ray — Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:22:21 -0000

i want to buy bitcoin just contact me if you wanna to sell me on nitinbandia@gmail.com

Re: Think The Blockchain is Interesting But Bitcoin Isn’t? Think Again

ytzpzvgk — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 08:36:20 -0000

Uh, cash is not a trap. Ask anyone who's watched a bank delete funds from an account for any reason, legit or illegit. Cash is power. It may be a terrible responsibility too which is why many people trust banks, but you can't deny the power of controlling the cash yourself.

Re: Think The Blockchain is Interesting But Bitcoin Isn’t? Think Again

Bitcoins and Gravy — Tue, 19 May 2015 00:03:52 -0000

wind taken out of its SAILS.
Like on a sailboat that moves using the power of wind.

Re: Think The Blockchain is Interesting But Bitcoin Isn’t? Think Again

@Bitcoinrat — Mon, 18 May 2015 05:42:26 -0000

The problem that needs solving for any “blockchain without bitcoin” Dave is how do you ensure that those who verify the transactions and
secure the ledger have no incentive to affect the nature and/or acceptance of the transaction?

The bitcoin blockchain achieves this by separating the security nodes (miners) from any relationship to the provenance of the transaction that they incorporate into their computations to receive their reward for progressing the packet. (payment for their time/costs)

The genius of the satoshi protocol is precisely this disconnection.

Any blockchain that relies on centralised permissions, and “trusted” third party nodes for verification , will not only fail to deliver any real innovation in future economic models as we enter the new age of p2p and decentralised capitalism but will also layer whole rafts of oversight, large player scrutiny and costs onto transactions that are passing through the blockchain. Banks almost certainly will set up their own "permissioned entry" blockchain ledgers to gain traction from the technology but these will not drive any real innovation or economic growth.

Bitcoin may not be perfect, and as a “currency” it may fall short of mass public adoption, but as the transport token that drives the only really independent blockchain it is unique, permissionless and – in the Rats view – unstoppable.

Re: Think The Blockchain is Interesting But Bitcoin Isn’t? Think Again

Gideon Greenspan — Mon, 18 May 2015 04:48:21 -0000

Hi Simon. Great post. I agree that the bitcoin blockchain and alternative systems are both interesting, but will likely have very different use cases for the next decade at least.

But there's another hybrid I'd like to suggest - a blockchain which is managed (i.e. created, maintained and mined) by some kind of banking consortium, but which still permits anonymous permissionless participation at the transaction level. The network of full nodes runs on a bunch of servers belonging to banks. But anyone who wants to use the network can download a lightweight SPV wallet onto their mobile, creating their own key pairs, and receive and send tokenised assets with other network participants.

This may sound like a no-go area for regulation, but as soon as the blockchain is managed centrally, the problem can be resolved by the administrators refusing to confirm/mine transactions they don't like. Essentially it's just a much cheaper way to manage a banking network, with zero onboarding costs for new customers, and no need for reconciliation/settlement and the like. For small transactions anonymity can be allowed, but once customers want to transact beyond a certain amount, they need to go through regular AML/KYC checks to get those larger transactions accepted. Fees and/or rate limits can be configured to make it impractical or unattractive to use many accounts in parallel in order to perform large aggregate transactions.

Of course, I'm biased, because this is a possible deployment scenario for what we're building :)

Re: Think The Blockchain is Interesting But Bitcoin Isn’t? Think Again

Pinar Emirdag — Sun, 17 May 2015 14:56:52 -0000

Good post indeed. Liking blockchain but not bitcoin is easy for some for sure - due to a variety of reasons which include convenience. Feels like a very fast train with all the buzz around bitcoin, blockchain, cryptoledgers etc! Someone recently told me that this whole thing could be a good case study in group-think. I think these concepts will start converging soon enough, as the real applications emerge, real life advantages/challenges surface, and the need for dismissing one or the other becomes irrelevant.

Re: Think The Blockchain is Interesting But Bitcoin Isn’t? Think Again

Douwe Lycklama — Sun, 17 May 2015 12:24:03 -0000

Good post! Bitcoin as currency still holds a future but we need imagination, the other angle of 'technology side' is easier to see for banks. EBA just published last week a good information paper on this, giving this angle some structure, framed from a payments & transaction banking point of view. https://www.abe-eba.eu/down...

Re: Think The Blockchain is Interesting But Bitcoin Isn’t? Think Again

iang — Sun, 17 May 2015 11:45:16 -0000

As with any uncertain future, an intelligent person can likely argue it both ways convincingly. What separates discourse from action is making a bet on which way it goes.

Luckily, it seems that this time such a bet is neither costly nor exclusive. A large institution such as a bank can happily invest in blockchain, bitcoin and alternate methods. One, a few, or all, without serious costs! Better yet, most or all of their learning will be readily transportable across the different technologies, because the real lessons are in what you can do, not in how good each offering is.

The real reasons why the banks argue that the blockchain is interesting and bitcoin will fail are simple knee-jerk competitive considerations. We can ignore those, as they won't markedly effect the landscape. Or surface them for what they are. Once said, let's move on and look at your bet.

"Where do you want to transact today?"

Re: Think The Blockchain is Interesting But Bitcoin Isn’t? Think Again

fmastr — Sun, 17 May 2015 11:27:06 -0000

both interesting - but that doesn't mean one won't be far more relevant than the other.

Re: Think The Blockchain is Interesting But Bitcoin Isn’t? Think Again

sytaylor — Sun, 17 May 2015 10:27:26 -0000

But then - what else is there that has the hashing power (Scale) and permissionless nature of Bitcoin?

Those properties are at least interesting. Granted, they're not proven.

Re: Think The Blockchain is Interesting But Bitcoin Isn’t? Think Again

sytaylor — Sun, 17 May 2015 10:26:25 -0000

Agree Brett - in fact Tim Swanson (@ofnumbers) has some excellent charts that show Bitcoin isn't liquid, it's just being hoarded or used as profit for miners and is a circular economy.

My follow up will be "things wrong with Bitcoin" or what it needs to do to go mainstream or something to that effect.

I also didn't ham up enough the role of a Ripple, Stellar or Eris in the short term for banks :)

Re: Think The Blockchain is Interesting But Bitcoin Isn’t? Think Again

Brett King — Sun, 17 May 2015 10:18:43 -0000

Sy, all good points. The issue bitcoin has isn't really any of these issues in my opinion. Bitcoin was on fire until the point that people started talking about XBT/BTC hitting USD $1 million equivalent for 1 BTC. At that point the inflationary characteristic of Bitcoin and the mining limitations in terms of supply, meant it was potentially more valuable to horde Bitcoin as an asset, than to spend it as a currency. At that point in time, Bitcoin's effectiveness as a challenger currency was massively harmed because circulation was decimated, and no one was spending it. The only way for Bitcoin to become an effective competitor to other currencies is purely adoption and utilization - if you're holding your Bitcoins you're not spending them, and the currency is not circulating, thus it's not going to get enough critical mass to build widespread trust and adoption.

The blockchain concept, however, works independently of Bitcoin. It doesn't make Bitcoin less impactful or less revolutionary, but as a tech it has more promise than Bitcoin which has had the wind taken out of it's sales because the designers and the community didn't factor in speculation and hoarding into the equation.

Re: Think The Blockchain is Interesting But Bitcoin Isn’t? Think Again

Dave Birch — Sun, 17 May 2015 10:08:34 -0000

I'm still unconvinced about Bitcoin as currency, so to me "blockchain is interesting but bitcoin isn't" makes complete sense as I'm only interested in bitcoin as a transport mechanism not as money. And I'm far from convinced that the Bitcoin blockchain is either the only or the best blockchain.

Re: The 5 Myths Preventing Bank Fintech Innovation

RedCloud — Sat, 16 May 2015 16:20:42 -0000

Really intelligent and considered article . Completely agree, and certainly it's what our bank customers tell us.

Re: Banks Can’t Have Innovation Because? False Certainty Kills It

Robin De Villiers — Thu, 14 May 2015 10:31:45 -0000

False certainty... I think you have a point, but I'm more cynical in my outlook.

How come Apple could almost overnight put companies like Nokia out of business? Large corporations don't innovate by choice. If they change the character of their industry to be more technology centric, then they will face competition from all the tech companies.

Nokia etc created an industry that supposedly offered us a better phone every few years. It was getting very tired even by the stage Apple came along. The idea of the iPhone isn't even really a revolution rather than an innovation. And a company like Nokia couldn't put two and two together and adapt? They chose not to since it would require significant investment and risk by doing so. Instead, much like bridge players, I feel they looked over the table and implicitly agreed with the likes of samsung and blackberry, that the current system was good and decided not to rock the boat too much.

Here's an idea for a retail bank: Instead of merely being a bucket of money that everyone pays a bank charge for, instead a person's bank can be an entire personal finance solution. At any point, they can ask for the standard array of accounting statements, but they can also commission third parties in a online market place to offer financial services. For example, someone might ask whether they are paying too much for gas and electricity. They could pay someone else to tell them who their best energy provider would be and even transfer their account over.

Now that's an idea I just had. It isn't an act of genius. So I'm fairly confident that the CEOs of retail banks have had similar ideas and choose not to develop these ideas.

Its the same with the TV and car manufacturing industries.

Re: The 5 Myths Preventing Bank Fintech Innovation

guest1 — Fri, 08 May 2015 07:23:35 -0000

Although I don't agree with many points in the article, the key focused 5 myths are very nice topics to be discussed about.

Re: The 5 Myths Preventing Bank Fintech Innovation

Spiros Margaris — Wed, 06 May 2015 01:35:55 -0000

GREAT ARTICLE AND INSIGHTS. Myths that hold no truth anymore. Good insights for #fintech and #banks who are open to change and opportunities.

Re: The 5 Myths Preventing Bank Fintech Innovation

Chris Greacen — Tue, 05 May 2015 19:29:54 -0000

We've seen all of these in-action with our incumbent fintech clients (not just banks). There are many organizations with the will to change, but lack the skills. It's interesting that there are usually pretty big organizational changes that are necessary in addition to tooling changes and also noteworthy that by embracing these changes, a bank may be able to attract and retain individuals with the kinds of skills to drive real innovation.