Aus der Schlussbetrachtung:
One question which remains is the extent to which DLT itself is actually essential to any of these potential market developments. Many appear to be equally achievable through more traditional technology. For example, existing settlement systems are capable of settling more quickly than the market standard two days. The fact that settlement is still done over a longer period is largely a function of market preference rather than technological constraint. Equally, it appears likely that faster payments could be delivered with non-DLT technology. However, even if such innovations do not in practice rely crucially on DLT, if the existence of the technology provides a spur to useful innovation, it may help the industry to achieve our statutory objectives.
DLT may offer some benefits which, while perhaps not unique, when combined with its other features, represent an improvement on other available technology. For example, we see potential to prevent and track financial crime in its ability to offer a shared record keeping platform with in-built validation rules, encryption and an audit trail of all changes. Additionally, DLT might enable challenger firms to offer more robust financial services at a better price than incumbent institutions which currently operate on less efficient legacy systems. DLT might, therefore, foster disruptive innovation in the interests of consumers in certain markets.