The R3 CEV Bank Exodus | dinbits


R3 CEV is getting thinner. After months of blasting the media unworthy bank interest, small tests being performed, and groundbreaking technology that we have yet to see, it has surfaced that they are losing support.

Goldman (Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N)) and Santander (Banco Santander SA (SAN.MC)), one of the original consortium members, have both bailed. Morgan Stanley shortly announced thereafter that they would also be opting out and now National Bank of Australia (NAB.AX) has joined the exodus. 

JP Morgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and Australia's Macquarie bank (MQG.AX) have yet to make a decision (according to Reuters) but it sounds like its closing in on "member" yes, investment "no".

Good, Bad, Who Cares?

Personally I would say the latter, but, others are interested so we'll offer an opinion on the matter. R3 appears to be re-inventing the wheel and have gone out of their way to bash everything about the blockchain underpinning bitcoin only to come full circle and start saying things like:

"If we have one platform with lots of products on top, then we get something that's more like the internet, where we still get innovation but we can still communicate with each other" - David Rutter

Which is a fact everyone has been saying since the inception of R3 and a fact they chose not to acknowledge until just recently. Just as hundreds of others before them did the same. This is how we ended up with over 1000 altcoins and altchains to begin with.

There are some talented individuals at R3 but at the end of the day there is a basic flaw in the product design that is likely concerning to entities forking over the cash for its creation in that it doesn't fix anything. It creates a better technical process but requires the same governance required now and thus eliminates very little other than 3rd party intermediaries which would indeed reduce costs but here's the issue with that.

If you only have nodes operated by people you don't necessarily trust in the first place, then what's the point of having the nodes at all? Secondly, when something screws up, who's going to fix the problem? If it's a massive implosion, who's getting sued? That's the thing, there's nobody to fix anything like there is with a SWIFT or VISA network since there's is no intermediary and since its not really blockchain technology, there's no real trust which means there's weak security and that all spells an eventual fatality.

Just an opinion on the matter.

It's been said before and here it is again. Private block-things like Corda and Cloudware (IBM) are a bad idea. They are disasters just waiting to happen because they promote a false sense of security with an absolute that's imaginary.

In any case, we'll still be listening to all of this crap in 2017 since many banks are on board with R3 but if they want to live beyond that they might start thinking about sidechaining. You know...being actually innovative by helping move things forward.

I wouldn't hold your breath.



Report by dinbits
Image by dinbits.com staff



The opinions expressed by authors of articles linked, referenced, or published on dinbits.com do not necessarily express, nor are endorsed by, the opinions the of dinbits.com or its affiliates.




Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger.