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.

Link: Dis­cus­sion Paper on dis­tri­bu­ted led­ger tech­no­lo­gy (FCA)

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert