Wall Street Mainstay Pulls Out Of Crypto Plan
In an exclusive report from CoinDesk, it was revealed that Citigroup, one of the world’s largest financial institutions, was revealed to have once pulled out of a plan to launch its own crypto asset. The thing is though, such a venture purportedly started in 2015.
Gulru Atak, one of Citi’s global heads of innovation, told the outlet that Citi’s research and development team, who have centered their efforts around “making meaningful improvements in the existing rails,” once established a project called “Citicoin.” The digital asset, which was nothing more than a proof of concept created by Citi’s Dublin innovators, was once internally touted as a way to bolster global, digital-based payments.
But, after weighing the costs of the prototype, Citi pulled the rug out from under the project, as it determined that there were better ways to “improve the existing [payment] rails.”
Instead of offering its own cryptocurrency, which would likely be centralized beyond compare, the New York-headquartered firm is looking into integrate blockchain into legacy systems, removing the need for a coin that may just complicate things. Atak remarked in closing:
“[CitiConnect’s goal] was purely to integrate into a blockchain-enabled system on our client’s end and make it connect to our legacy payment processes real-time… “
Details of Citicoin are hard to come across. But, many have drawn lines between the experiment and newfangled product from JP Morgan.
JP Morgan Only Doubles Down
Down the street from Citi, the financial pillar has begun a pilot for what is best known as JPM Coin, a U.S. dollar-backed stablecoin based on a private version of the Ethereum blockchain. As reported by Ethereum World News when the news broke, the ledger-based token will first be used for a
“tiny fraction” of the institution’s $6 trillion in daily corporate transactions. The bank’s fintech team hopes that this venture will reduce costs.
Eventually, overt Bitcoin critic Jamie Dimon wishes for JPM Coin to be harnessed in the day-to-day, telling investors that it could one day be an asset heavily utilized by the consumer audience. In other words, Dimon and his cronies intend to see JPM Coin used in everything from buying a coffee to international billion-dollar payments.
So if Citi dropped Citicoin, why is JP Morgan going ahead with JPM Coin?
Well, the answer to this isn’t all too clear, but there has been speculation about this subject matter. What many have drawn attention to is the fact that since 2015, blockchain technologies have advanced monumentally, making centralized cryptocurrencies all the more valuable.
Anyhow, all this only underscores the level of institutional interest in this embryonic innovation. But will it be centralized and decentralized cryptocurrencies that garner adoption in the end? For now, no one is all too sure.
Photo by Anthony Ginsbrook on Unsplash
The post Citi Once Had Plans To Launch A (Centralized) Crypto Asset, But Failed To Execute appeared first on Ethereum World News.
Upon first examination, JPM coin is an exciting Wall Street development, but the reality is more complicated, writes Kadena’s Ben Jessel.
In our Expert Takes, opinion leaders from inside and outside the crypto industry express their views, share their experience and give professional advice. Expert Takes cover everything from Blockchain technology and ICO funding to taxation, regulation and cryptocurrency adoption by different sectors of the economy.
If you would like to contribute an Expert Take, please email your ideas and CV to email@example.com.
For crypto maximalists, the idea of banks getting involved in cryptos is contrary to the very principles on which Bitcoin was created. Cryptos are supposed to replace banks, not enrich them. But the reality is that cryptos are not yet ready to take over a financial system that took decades to develop. Whether crypto supporters like it or not, cryptos will have to adapt to existing regulations.
Even crypto maximalists need good old banks and institutional investors to get in on cryptos to see the value of cryptos increase. On their side, regulators realize more and more that there is no putting the crypto genie back in the bottle, the financial system will have to learn to coexist with cryptos.
The challenge for traditional banking will be to adapt to this new world, whose infrastructure and core principles are so completely different from what has ever been done in a pre-Blockchain era. To understand how the two ecosystems need to evolve to accommodate each other, it is necessary to first understand how each of them works.
You are your own bank, but…
The whole point of cryptos is that you do not need to trust a third party to hold your crypto assets. As long as you control your private keys, you are the only one able to initiate transactions and you do not face any counterparty risk, you are effectively your own bank. While this is great for individuals who want to reclaim their “monetary sovereignty” to quote Trace Mayer, this is not ideal when it comes to institutional investors.
Trusting institutional investors’ internal systems to safe-keep potentially billions of dollars in cryptos is a scary prospect. All it would take is one tech savvy employee to steal the cryptos. Remember that in the decentralized world of cryptocurrencies, transactions are final and immutable once recorded on the blockchain (unless the community decides to carry a hard fork, but let’s not get there). It is therefore not advisable that each institutional investor develop its own solution to hold the private keys of the cryptos it owns.
In the past few months, while the market was dealing with the aftermath of the crypto frenzy of late 2017, solutions were quietly being built to allow institutional investors to finally get in. According to Mike Novogratz, founder of Galaxy Digital, 98% of the trading activity so far has been driven by retail investors. This is not how it was supposed to happen, at least not according to Wall Street. Retail investors usually come last to the party, after VCs, Wall Street and institutional investors. But this time institutional investors had no way of investing in cryptos. Legacy regulations all over the world usually require these investors to rely on custodians to safe keep their assets or to build in-house custodial solutions. This has been designed to protect investors against fraud by separating asset managers from asset custodians. This way, asset managers cannot lie on what is in their portfolios nor their valuations as third parties are actually holding their securities on their behalf. It also greatly simplifies trading activities as securities are being held by a few global custodians on behalf of millions clients. Instead of having millions of individual investors all over the world each owning stocks or bonds, a few giant custodians hold most of the global financial assets on behalf of millions of customers (Bank of New York Mellon has custody of $33 trillion of assets while JP Morgan has $28 trillion under custody).
Many companies have been making announcements at or after the Consensus conference. Ledger has developed technical solutions for custodians while Coinbase is launching a custodial service for example. Once these solutions are up and running and provided that institutional investors get approval from their investment committees to enter the crypto space, the market is likely to see large inflows of fiat currency. Having to rely on a few and most likely heavily regulated custodians will reduce the risk that smaller, less tech savvy institutional investors get targeted by hackers. At the same time, the larger the custodians, the more they will pose a systemic risk to the whole sector in the event of a massive theft of their cryptos…
Crypto exchanges having been wearing too many hats
Investing in the stock market has been made easier and easier in the past decades. What many investors may not realize is the mechanics that underpin the simple act of buying stocks. When one wants to invest in stocks, one simply opens a brokerage account, funds it with fiat currency and one can subsequently start buying and selling stocks. When a buy or sell order is initiated by an investor, the broker is going to route it through several exchanges in order to find the best execution price. Once the trade has been executed, it usually takes a few days to settle (yes, days…). Once the trade has been settled, the stock is effectively transferred to the brokerage account of the buyer. The trader may not even be aware of which exchange has been used to execute the trade. Whether NASDAQ, NYSE, IEX or any other exchange was used does not matter, the stocks bought are registered to the brokerage account of the trader. Investors do not need to have any account with any exchange, the brokerage firm is the one with accounts with the various exchanges. But this is not how it works in the crypto space, not at all.
In the crypto ecosystem, exchanges have been playing all three roles of brokerage firms, exchanges and custodians, a recipe for disaster. There are many reasons why financial markets evolved the way they did. Over the course of decades of financial crises, bankruptcies and frauds, regulations have been refined to protect investors. In the traditional finance world, exchanges do not hold any of the assets that are traded on their platform, all they do is provide an engine that matches buy orders with sell orders. But since exchanges are the gateway to cryptos, most people have assumed that they were no different from their brokerage accounts and that they benefited from the same level of protection as with a regular brokerage account, not understanding the concentration of risks underneath.
Centralized exchanges have been and will remain at the mercy of hacks because of the vast amounts of cryptos they control. It can never be said enough, if you leave your cryptos on an exchange, they are not really your cryptos. As long as an exchange is holding your cryptos on your behalf, you do not control them and you are at the mercy of hackers that are attempting to steal private keys from the exchange. Once you buy cryptos from an exchange, you should immediately withdraw them to your own wallet, this way only you control your private keys and you are shielded from hacks that may target exchanges.
“In the crypto ecosystem, exchanges have been playing all three roles of brokerage firms, exchanges and custodians.”
To solve this problem, a second generation of exchanges is emerging: decentralized exchanges such as IDEX or EtherDelta. These exchanges do not hold your cryptos on your behalf but simply provide the trading engine. Through smart contracts, traders can exchange cryptos without having to rely on a third party in the middle to hold their cryptos. This type of exchanges have become increasingly popular for ERC-20 tokens built on top of the Ethereum Blockchain.
The large number of crypto exchanges has also created a very fragmented market where price inconsistencies can be exploited by arbitrageurs. However, large arbitrage opportunities are unlikely to last for long as more and more brokers are entering the market with new trading platforms. These new solutions will enable institutional investors to execute large trades over multiple exchanges, which will enable them to optimize the price at which they buy or sell cryptos.
The blocks are falling in place
Over time, it is likely that the crypto ecosystem is going to look more and more like the traditional finance ecosystem with brokers and custodians, at least for institutional investors, which means that exchanges may go back to simply being matching engines instead of the one-stop-shops they are today.
Even though current prices are not reflective of the progress made in the whole crypto ecosystem over the past few months, the market is maturing fast and does not look anything like it did one year, two years or three years ago. Cryptos are on the radar of regulators all over the world, and it is a good thing because it is going to force the whole ecosystem to grow up from its current state of infancy. When and how this may end up being reflected in crypto prices is a much more difficult question to answer.
The views and interpretations in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Cointelegraph.com and the World Bank.
Vincent Launay is a finance specialist at the World Bank in Washington DC. He holds an MSc in Finance from HEC Paris and a CFA charter.
While last year R3 had implied that the company had a larger goal of raising $200 mln in funding, R3 told Fortune that the figure came from a now-cancelled plan to sell a stake in a research subsidiary. The unnamed former R3 employees told Fortune that the consortium’s internal financial targets are “10X short” of their revenue, with the figure described as “laughably off.”
Charley Cooper, an R3 managing director, told Fortune that the company is not in danger of running out of revenue and will release an update on their finances at the end of the calendar year:
“We currently have more than sufficient funding and at this point have no plans to raise additional money.”
At the end of May, Forex settlement provider CLS invested $5 mln in R3 as part of a reported third round of R3 fundraising.
One unnamed former R3 employee told Fortune that one of the problems the consortium faced was a lack of developers for R3’s Corda blockchain:
“Although R3 will say 1,300 architects are contributing to Corda, if you look at the public release notes of R3, there will be no more than three people listed. The public version of Ethereum had 10,000 developers contributing.”
R3’s founding members had included banking giants JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, but Goldman Sachs (and bank Santander) left the consortium in 2016. An unnamed Goldman Sachs source told Fortune that the bank left due to the unexpectedly large size of the consortium.
R3 recently partnered with enterprise startup Bloxian Technology, which is notable in that it is a step away from the business model of partnering with banks. R3’s turn to enterprise blockchain sales means that they are now competing with organizations like the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance, whose members include JP Morgan and Microsoft, as well as Hyperledger, according to Fortune.
R3 also filed a lawsuit against Ripple (XRP) last year, claiming that the latter had violated an agreement for R3 to purchase 5 bln XRP tokens for $0.0085 before the end of 2019. Ripple denies an obligation to pay, citing R3’s alleged failure to follow through on parts of the agreement. The case will be held in New York City, with the value of 5 bln XRP now equal to around $3.3 bln — which could represent a much-need cash infusion, Fortune reports.
R3 did not respond to Cointelegraph’s request for comment by press time.
“Convergence” may mean different things to different people in blockchain, but it’s a word that’s appearing more in more in public rhetoric of late.
For some, it simply means that innovations developed on a public blockchain powered by a cryptocurrency can be leveraged on a private blockchain used by enterprises, and vice versa. But to others, the rise of the term shows that the lines between these categories, once starkly drawn, are starting to fade.
As companies start to recognize the merits of public chains; as new technology enables different types of ledgers to communicate with each other; and as central banks consider issuing digital versions of their fiat currencies that could be used to settle trades in blockchain assets; nomenclature is evolving to fit the times.
“I would like to see in a year from now for most people to think it’s absurd to say ‘private networks’ or ‘public networks,'” John Wolpert, the former blockchain lead at IBM, said at Consensus 2018.
Back in 2015, the industry needed to diverge into public and private spheres, Wolpert said. But to him, it’s becoming clear that the industry is now heading the other way.
His own CV supports this idea, as he left IBM last fall to take up the new position of “seeker of awesomeness” at ethereum design studio ConsenSys. Indeed, seeing big names from world of enterprise blockchains jump over to join startups focused on the public domain is a telling sign.
In another example, former JP Morgan blockchain lead Amber Baldet’s new project, Clovyr, is all about building the middleware developer tooling and connectivity services to make convergence a reality.
There are plenty of rational reasons for people to use private networks, Baldet told CoinDesk, whether it’s for added privacy, control over corporate governance, or “a computationally expensive game to get performance and cost benefits.”
“As public networks gain value – it becomes where their customers are – connectivity will be an obvious evolution,” she said, adding:
“Pressuring businesses to move core operations to public chains is unnecessary; soon enough the lines between public and private will blur into a pragmatic and functional internet of value.”
So, what does this mean in practice? Even in the highly regulated, cryptocurrency-averse world of banking, some seasoned technologists see a potential osmosis between public, open-access blockchains and private member-access networks somewhere on the horizon.
John Whelan, director of Banco Santander’s Blockchain Lab, drew on the internet-intranet analogy, often used by cryptocurrency proponents to argue private blockchains will one day dissolve to insignificance.
“I think we may see – although not guaranteed – some kind of convergence between private permissioned ledger networks,” said Whelan. “For private and permissioned [version], I would use the intranet analogy, and the public networks I would use as the internet analogy, with suitable bridging protocols, which are in development.”
However, Whelan said the important first part of the convergence story must take place within the banks themselves: a massive reduction in the number of ledgers, duplicated technology and reconciliation.
“The financial industry is moving from an architecture of many ledgers, to one of fewer ledgers. It’s that simple,” he said.
Others are more skeptical about the notion of public-private convergence at the network level, but still see the two spheres influencing each other.
“On the product level, I think we can expect to see continued cross-pollination of ideas and technologies between public and private blockchains, since there is a great deal of technical overlap between these two types of system,” said Gideon Greenspan, CEO of MultiChain, a startup that helps organizations build and deploy blockchains.
But the scalability, confidentiality and governance requirements are completely different for public and private chains, he added.
“I rarely, if ever, hear of a use case that could be sensibly implemented on either,” said Greenspan. “The closest I’ve seen is using a public chain to notarize a hash representing the state of a private chain, and this can make sense for extra security, but I don’t really think you can call it ‘convergence.'”
Of course, such views aren’t stopping progress in the form of collaboration. The Enterprise Ethereum Alliance (EEA), formed in 2017 to develop standards for private forks of ethereum, has become one of the more visible convergence-seekers backed by major banks and businesses.
The group recently released a long-awaited spec, plus details of how its architecture stack dovetails with the work of the Ethereum Foundation, the nonprofit that promotes the development of the public ethereum cryptocurrency. All this has occurred under the guidance of new EEA chief Ron Resnick.
The EEA sees a positive feedback loop between features developed for enterprises and the ethereum improvement proposals (EIPs) that are floated by developers for the public network.
“As more standards are established by the EEA, I’m sure more opportunities to base standards on EIPs and vice versa will start to emerge,” Conor Svensson, co-chair of the integration and tools working group at EEA, said. “I am optimistic we will see this starting to happen in 2018.”
Perhaps the most prominent example of this so far has been work that Amis Technologies did with its implementation of Istanbul Byzantine Fault Tolerance for the ethereum client Go Ethereum (Geth).
This ethereum improvement proposal (EIP-650) added a new consensus algorithm to Geth, one better suited to financial enterprises than existing proof-of-work or proof of authority. And it was then added to Quorum, the private blockchain platform developed by JP Morgan.
Svensson also pointed to identity as another area where public and private chain boundaries could theoretically be crossed, since identity on a blockchain is always protected by a private key.
“As long as the private key remains secure, you have a notion of identity that can potentially be used on multiple chains (provided they use the same underlying cryptographic algorithms),” he said.
However, “whether you should use one identity across multiple chains is another question entirely,” he said.
Cash on ledger
Still, a prerequisite for full-fledged convergence of public and private chains would be the development of fiat cash on distributed ledgers, or so many seem to agree.
This would allow all sorts of digital assets and blockchain-based financial instruments to flow through the systems more easily since users would trust a government-backed currency more than a volatile cryptocurrency.
“Cash on the ledger is an essential if not the essential building block for commerce on ledger platforms,” said Clark Thompson, global solutions architecture lead at ConsenSys.
The ethereum-based app builder has a dedicated team of experts looking at all varieties of fiat cash on distributed ledgers, and it’s working with UnionBank of the Philippines to create a low-cost tokenized fiat solution for rural banking. In time, this could be extended to cover a larger network of banks and perhaps even the central bank, ConsenSys says.
Indeed, while fiat currency held in a traditional bank account can be represented as a token on a distributed ledger, this setup creates redemption risk, which might put off some investors. The ultimate digital cash, from enterprises’ point of view, would be a central bank-issued digital currency (CBDC).
“Central bank policy changes are necessary to permit central bank-issued tokenized fiat, which has the advantage that (like cash) it carries no counterparty risk,” said Thomson.
It’s anybody’s guess how long such a change would take, though, as central banks themselves are still tentatively exploring the concept.
But Whelan at Santander (a member of the Utility Settlement Coin consortium, which is attempting to make central bank money on distributed ledgers a reality) said he believes there could be a CBDC on a distributed ledger “within a few years.”
What remains to be seen is whether it is deployed directly by central banks, or uses a kind of two-step process where commercial banks essentially lend money into the system.
“This is really a policy question for the central banks to examine. That’s not a technology question.”
Two-lane highway via Shutterstock
The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.
IHS Markit is developing a blockchain-based system to handle cash payments in syndicated loans – and eventually, in a wider range of transactions.
JP Morgan Chase, one of the most important banks around the world and in the United States, has decided to hire a fintech and crypto expert, known as Oliver Harris to take the role as head of crypto-assets strategy. The information has shocked some individuals in the crypto community that remembered what Jamie Dimon, CEO at JP Morgan, said about virtual currencies and Bitcoin.
JP Morgan New Crypto Strategy
The first to report Mr. Harris’ new job was Financial News, which explained that the main task of the expert will be to explore the potential of digital money at its corporate and investment bank.
The bank will be working so as to give an answer to the challenging new technologies in the financial world. Blockchain technology and virtual currencies are expanding in many different industries, and the banking sector does not want to lag behind.
Indeed, some months ago, banks like Bank of America admitted that it may be complicated to compete against these new financial services, platforms and products.
In an official report, Bank of America explained:
“In addition, the widespread adoption of new technologies, including internet services, cryptocurrencies and payment systems, could require substantial expenditures to modify or adopt our existing products and services as we grow and develop our internet banking and mobile banking channel strategies in addition to remote connectivity solutions. We might not be successful in developing or introducing new products or services.”
These declarations show that banks will have to invest in blockchain and virtual currencies if they want to remain competitive and keep controlling an important part of the market. But the statement confirms the difficulties that the industry is now facing.
Daniel Pinto, former fixed-income trader and co-president of JP Morgan Chase, said during a conversation with CNBC that they were looking into the space of virtual currencies and blockchain technology.
“I have no doubt that in one way or another the technology will play a role,” Mr. Pinto said. But the he explained that regulations are going to kill bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in the long term, making people stop believing in it.
Jamie Dimon’s Comments
During the last year, Jamie Dimon has been commenting in a very negative way about cryptocurrencies and specifically Bitcoin. For example, Mr. Dimon said that Bitcoin ‘is a fraud’ and that it will eventually ‘blow up.’
But he made a clear distinction between virtual currencies and Bitcoin. He said that ‘the technology [blockchain] will be used to transport money. But it will not be Bitcoin, but US Dollars that will be transported.”
JP Morgan has developed a blockchain platform known as Quorum, which is being used by several institutions and companies for different purposes. With Oliver Harris, and a team of experts in blockchain and virtual currencies, the famous bank is trying to keep at the forefront of the cryptocurrency and blockchain developments. In order to do so, it will have to invest important sums of money in innovation and new technologies.
JP Morgan’s filing for a patent based on DLT does not mean they are now Bitcoin supporters.
JP Morgan once again caused a bit of an upheaval within cryptocurrency circles last week – this time with the publication of their peer-to-peer (P2P) payments network patent application based on distributed ledger technology, like blockchain.
Some crypto enthusiasts branded the move as “hypocrisy to the extreme.” The criticism is not unfounded but perhaps not accurate. The bank, and to a greater extent, their outspoken CEO, Jamie Dimon, has been responsible for a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt surrounding Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as a whole.
“Bitcoin is a fraud”
The Jamie Dimon/JP Morgan saga of 2017 is still fresh in the minds of crypto enthusiasts. It all started with Dimon’s now-infamous words calling Bitcoin a “fraud” in September 2017. Shortly after that, in a somewhat confusing move, JP Morgan purchased a chunk of Bitcoin.
Even more confusing was the fact that less than a week later, Jamie Dimon lashed out against Bitcoin, stating that governments would soon ban it. In the same breath, he fired shots at the industry as a whole, saying cryptocurrencies are “worth nothing”. Less than a month later he called Bitcoin investors “stupid”, adding that they “will pay the price for it one day”.
However, JP Morgan’s strategies didn’t always seem to line up with the opinions of their CEO, as in Nov. 2017 the bank announced that they planned to trade Bitcoin futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). In December 2017, a strategist at the bank had gone so far as to say that regulated futures markets give Bitcoin legitimacy.
By January 2018, Jamie Dimon himself had done a complete 180 on his “Bitcoin-is-a-fraud” comments and said he regretted making it. All this happened within the space of four months and cemented JP Morgan’s perceived reputation – and Dimon’s personal reputation – as the ultimate Bitcoin and cryptocurrency “villain”.
Criticism was never labeled against blockchain
While their skepticism surrounding Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies is clear, JP Morgan, and Jamie Dimon, never expressed any animosity towards blockchain’s legitimacy. In fact, JP Morgan is one of the underlying technology’s earliest supporters and testers.
As far back as 1999, the bank filed a patent for an alternative payments network. In 2016 they unveiled Juno and Quorum, two separate blockchain-based projects. JP Morgan is also one of over 300 members that make up the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance (EEA).
The bank has a strong record of support for blockchain itself and their latest patent application should come as no surprise. In fact, the bank first filed the patent – which aims to facilitate interbank payments using blockchain technology on October 30, 2017, a mere two weeks after Jamie Dimon labeled Bitcoin investors stupid.
The surprise might come later
The apparent surprise or hypocrisy stems from the fact that Bitcoin, blockchain and cryptocurrency are still being used as interchangeable concepts in mainstream media. This is not accurate, just as JP Morgan’s filing for a patent based on distributed ledger technology does not mean they are now staunch Bitcoin supporters.
However, the surprise might come later. Blockchain has moved on from just being the technology that underpins Bitcoin and has potential use cases other than just as a basis for cryptocurrency networks, including the tracking of vaccines in healthcare, secure remote voting during elections, incorruptible and accurate record keeping of official government documents, to name a few.
Saying that, JP Morgan is specifically applying for a patent on a “method for processing network payments using a distributed ledger”. This begs the question; can you have a P2P payments network based on blockchain without utilizing a digital token in some shape or form to process such payments?
“It’s not the competition part that is off… it’s the fact that they are describing the exact thing Ripple is currently pushing into the market. There is no way this patent goes through, and if it does, prior art will protect Ripple as they have this working already. It’s (as someone else stated) like filing a patent for an electric vehicle today.”
How does Ripple work?
Ripple connects banks around the world and enables them to offer real-time cross-border payment services to customers. Cross-border payments in the traditional sense require a number of intermediary companies to execute which means transactions can take up to four days to complete.
Ripple allows banks to sidestep these intermediaries with their transaction protocol, enabling them to execute transactions directly, and in doing so, cutting down costs and processing times. The transaction protocol includes a five-step process of payment initiation, pre-transaction validation, cryptographic hold of funds, settlement and confirmation.
Messaging systems are used to coordinate information exchange between the originating and beneficiary banks and an interledger protocol (ILP) ledger is used to coordinate the actual movement of funds. The goal is to speed up processing times, increase end-to-end visibility, increase transaction approval rates and ultimately lower transaction costs.
What are the similarities with JP Morgan’s proposed blockchain payment network?
The patent application describes a process of “Systems and methods for the application of distributed ledgers for network payments as financial exchange settlement and reconciliation.”
It goes on to claim, “In one embodiment, a method for processing network payments using a distributed ledger may include:
- a payment originator initiating a payment instruction to a payment beneficiary;
- a payment originator bank posting and committing the payment instruction to a distributed ledger on a P2P network;
- the payment beneficiary bank posting and committing the payment instruction to the distributed ledger on a P2P network; and
- the payment originator bank validating and processing the payment through a payment originator bank internal system and debiting an originator account.”
JP Morgan’s proposed system therefore depicts a payment protocol with direct communication or messaging between beneficiary and originator banks, used in conjunction with a reconciliatory distributed ledger blockchain.
In essence, this is a very similar system and process to that used by Ripple, basically describing an interbank messaging and reconciliation protocol based on distributed ledger technology in order to eliminate expensive intermediaries, speed up transaction time and extend the global remittance reach.
It would also seem then, that if JP Morgan is indeed planning to develop the system described in the patent, they will have to implement it with a cryptocurrency at its core, the very thing they have been trying to discredit for the last few months.
The ultimate question then becomes whether it is possible to be a strong supporter of blockchain on one hand, but an equally strong opponent of the validity and legitimacy of cryptocurrencies on the other.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co presented a prototype of its blockchain platform for capital markets, which aims to cut costs and enable smoother securities transactions. The announcement took place at NY’s Consensus conference Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported May 16.
Christine Moy, executive director of J.P. Morgan’s Blockchain Center of Excellence, told WSJ that blockchain “has the potential to be transformative” for the capital markets infrastructure.
She explained that capital markets – in which vast amounts of capital are transacted – involve multiple systems and information flows between many different stakeholders, “from issuers and asset managers to clearing houses and fund administrators.” “The promise of natively issuing financial instruments on blockchain is that you can share that infrastructure,” she said.
Moy told the WSJ that a blockchain could offer a single, streamlined application, which each of the multiple entities could share and participate in. This could bring significant cost savings, she suggested, as well as overcoming issues of trust between parties.
J.P. Morgan – alongside Santander and other major banks and tech industry players – is part of the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance, a nonprofit that focuses on enabling interoperability between Ethereum blockchain applications, as well as improving their privacy, scalability, and security.
As Cointelegraph reported earlier this month, JPMorgan is working on blockchain integration to rehaul its payment, clearing and settlement systems, recently filing a patent for real-time p2p intra- and interbank transfers based on the technology.
Just yesterday, JPMorgan co-president Daniel Pinto confirmed that the bank is “looking into” the crypto space, saying he had “no doubt” the technology would “play a role” in the bank’s future. He suggested the “tokenization” of the traditional financial sector would, however, likely see new iterations, saying that, for him:
“Cryptocurrencies are real but not in the[ir] current form.”