>yeah are you going to move off the permissions blockchain to just permissioned smart contracts on a public blockchain?
Perhaps for clearing - ownership wise I think it stays permissioned - no investor wants to loose the wallet and not be able to recover their asset.
>One day DTCC and FINRA and the Fed will conform it to their redundant processes so that registered securities can do the same, using the same public utilities as everyone else.
100% - that's the plan but it's a massive regulatory capture to fight. Akin to launching a rocket and you need DoD and hundred other permissions.
One thing to keep in mind - Sec Act of 1933 and 1934 are here to stay - they may get new regs under them but ownership needs to be transferable outside just the normal case of trading i.e. trust, death, divorce, birth blah blah...
smart contracts on public blockchains can handle all those custodial aspects
the smart contracts can be permissioned and have multiple signers and beneficiaries and payable on death conditions, the oracles and admins can be multi signer accounts too
I’m just trying to figure out what false dilemmas you are operating under, the examples already exist
You’re the advocate, in your world, but seemingly stuck in their myriad of concerns that are based on incomplete information
reminds me of how the substitute meat is repulsive to omnivores and vegans alike. hyperledger vibes
the challenge with hyperledger is that there you can run unlimited arbitrary executions of any computational time, but have to run all other nodes’ arbitrary executions of any computational time, so the whole network is DDOSing each other with these stupidly expensive computations all for the sake of saying “blockchain without crypto!”
as if the crypto didn't serve the specific purpose of putting a cost on computational transactions, creating limited block space, so that people wouldn't do expensive computations
it doesn’t solve any problem that blockchain set out to solve, its nice that you found a way to have a shared google spreadsheet with macros without having to debate over whose account made the doc or organization, but its not a technological improvement that presents a novel alternative to a fungible data writing credit that crypto is, the only improvement is catering to a gullible enterprise audience who simply asked for a no-coin version of blockchain so they could say they have a blockchain strategy, grifting to enterprise clients is fine until those users act like they solved a deficiency of speculation as if thats a problem at all
public blockchains and smart contracts have a solution for the problems you mentioned so far, those are the myriad of concerns I’m referring to. Public blockchains also provide benefits to transparency and security that make the SROs and securities regulator redundant in their current form. There is another more productive way they can improve the things deployed on blockchains and give confidence to investors, but that’s only going to come from the blockchain space’s own regulatory capture, ironically thanks to speculation creating new consolidation of power and interest.
Perhaps for clearing - ownership wise I think it stays permissioned - no investor wants to loose the wallet and not be able to recover their asset.
>One day DTCC and FINRA and the Fed will conform it to their redundant processes so that registered securities can do the same, using the same public utilities as everyone else.
100% - that's the plan but it's a massive regulatory capture to fight. Akin to launching a rocket and you need DoD and hundred other permissions.
One thing to keep in mind - Sec Act of 1933 and 1934 are here to stay - they may get new regs under them but ownership needs to be transferable outside just the normal case of trading i.e. trust, death, divorce, birth blah blah...