04 July 2017
This House Believes We Need Blockchain For Clearing And Settlement
Background:To end the Financial Services Club 2016-17 season, we are delighted to host some of the leading thinkers about financial technology in what will be sure to be a major debate about distributed ledgers and blockchain.
For the past few years, there has been lots of excitement about blockchain and its application to clearing and settlement, further to the Oliver Wyman estimate that the markets could save $20 billion a year in inefficiencies by applying this technology to this area.
We then saw the rise of companies like DAH with Blythe Masters and SETL with Peter Randall, where highly experienced financiers created major market interest in the implementation of this technology in this area.
Surprisingly, there are some who believe this is not a legitimate use case. In a recent twitter spat, for example, Izabella Kaminska of the Financial Times recently wrote: “Thus far the technology (blockchain) which was supposed to be revolutionising finance and making it more secure is looking awfully like the old technology which ran the system into the ground”. She is adamant that this technology is not appropriate for clearing and settlement as blockchain settlement poses major hurdles for a financial system that depends on anonymity and obscurity for liquidity and efficiency, and a broker network which can identify parties only on a need-to-know basis.
To gain more knowledge of the subject and to make your own mind up as to the true application of these technologies, we have gather four leading lights to give their insights:
Proposing the motion:
Ajit Tripathi, Director, Fintech and Digital Banking, PwC
Marcus Treacher, Global Head of Strategic Accounts, Ripple
Opposing the motion:
Izabella Kaminska, Blogger, FT Alphaville
Dave Birch, Director of Innovation, Consult Hyperion