Blockchain: Can it make marriage easier?

According to this article on Wharton, the argument was that blockchain can fill the "trust deficit" that exists. Although the merits of this argument go beyond the post, what can be agreed is that - at its core - blockchain facilitates trust in a trustless environment.

The central feature of the bitcoin blockchain is that it allows anyone to confirm that the person sending the bitcoins actually has those coins in their wallet and they haven't sent it to someone else.

However, how can this help with marriage?

Well, it's actually more about issuing the actual marriage certificate and not actually resolving actual marriage disputes.

I recently discovered the intricacies involved in issuing a marriage certificate, which I needed in a timely manner. The following must happen before the certificate gets issued:

1. Get a marriage license: The municipality must issue a marriage license. To get this license, the municipal clerk needs to verify your identity. 
2. Get someone to officiate the ceremony: Another person must then officiate the marriage ceremony. Normally, this is a religious person. But it could also be anyone who is recognized by the province to officiate such ceremonies. Let's just call them "officiator" for the purposes of this post. 
3. Send documentation to the government: the "officiator must send the documentation to the government. 
4. The government then issues the marriage certificate to the marriage couple: This is actually not issued by the municipality but a government office in Thunder Bay, which can't be accessed in a reasonable time by a land vehicle from the Greater Toronto Area. (Rumour has it there are a handful of people that process thousands of certificates a day)

So how can blockchain help with this process?

To be a bit more specific, this is the permissioned blockchain (unlike bitcoin which is a public blockchain) that is implemented between trusted parties. As noted in the process described above, there are many parties involved - the bride and groom, the municipal clerk, the officiator and the government - all these parties would need to be on-boarded through a KYC process that would give each participant a private key that enables them to "sign" the "digital paperwork" at each phase of the process.

This would then allow "digital marriage certificates" to be issued instantaneously at a Service Ontario instead of having to wait for the mail to arrive from Thunder Bay.

Ultimately, the use case illustrates that the blockchain can facilitate a processing of "decentralized paperwork" in a more timely manner. Such an approach would also encourage people to get their digital IDs, which then could be leveraged for other processes.

Author: Malik Datardina, CPA, CA, CISA. Malik works at Auvenir as a GRC Strategist that is working to transform the engagement experience for accounting firms and their clients. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW, Auvenir (or its affiliates), CPA Canada or anyone else

What's missing from this Top 5 uses of Blockchain list?

TechRepublic's Tom Merritt  walks us through the "Top 5" uses of blockchain in the following video. The accompanying post lists the following 5 use cases:

• Stocks
• Shipping
• Diamonds 
• Livestock 
• Law

What's missing? 

Stocks use case is actually limited to Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs). For more on an overview of ICOs, check this article. However, the post excluded Linq's blockchain that allows for the settlement of private securities.

But on a broader note, the post excluded the financial industry altogether in terms of being a forerunner for the use of blockchain. Following the hype-cycle, one of the early areas of interest for the use of the permissioned blockchain were financial institutions. It seemed like every week that a company joining the R3 Consortium.


However, since that initial fervor, a number of players, such as Goldman Sachs, Santander, Morgan Stanley and the National Australian Bank, have left the consortium.

Why?

The problem lies in understanding the actual business case for the permissioned blockchain (for the differences between public and private/permissioned, see this post). The permissioned blockchain helps parties to have a common view of transactions that they have transacted with each other via a shared ledger database. With the use of digital signatures, it incorporates authorization into this as well, so in addition to sharing information, it also enables the ability to "sign-off" on that information.

The banks could decide that they would use such a framework to make it easier to settle payments, however, how do they keep things private such as pricing and other data? This is something that needs to be sorted out but points to a bigger question as to what is the strategic advantage of blockchain for FIs. That is, this exponential technology doesn't lead to cost savings like robotic process automation or strategic insights like big data analysis.

And that's why I think something like shipping or supply chain more broadly is a much better beachhead for blockchain. With multiple partners involved in supply chain, have a shared database enables the partners to see where things are at between the wholesaler, shipper, and retailer, enabling each partner to get better insights into movement of goods and other business information. Such a system would allow for creative ways to settle payments or even enhance the ability of retailers to design consignment contracts with wholesalers. For example, BestBuy is marketplace (e.g. Brainydeal is one such retailer) within its retail front requiring such coordination. The one caveat, however, is to ensure that (cheaper) existing technology doesn't actually do this already. After all, shared databases are not a novel concept.

I would contend that legal would be a great place for the blockchain to expedite paperwork - more so than supply chain. However, such technology would be fought tooth and nail by lawyers. And they have unlimited resources to fight such technology in the courts. Also, politicians have little incentive to look into such advances as most of them are lawyers, depend on lawyers or have friends who are.

Author: Malik Datardina, CPA, CA, CISA. Malik works at Auvenir as a GRC Strategist that is working to transform the engagement experience for accounting firms and their clients. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW, Auvenir (or its affiliates), CPA Canada or anyone else.

Bitcoin clampdown: Towards a corporate-cryptocurrency?

WSJ reported that the Chinese government was working to shut down Bitcoin exchanges:

"China’s central bank together with other regulators has drafted instructions banning Chinese platforms from providing virtual-currency trading services, according to people familiar with the matter...regulators told at least one of the exchanges that the decision to shutter them has been made, one of the people said. Another said the order may take several months to implement."
China, however, is not the only has such issues with cryptocurrency. The US also has limited the use of Bitcoin by taxing it as a capital gain:

"Capital-gains tax rules could make using bitcoin as a currency a logistical nightmare. It meant that when U.S. citizens filed taxes, they had to account for every single bitcoin acquired, sold, or used for purchases, and the prices and dates at which those transactions happened. If you purchased 0.5 bitcoins at $360 in April 2014 and sold them for $645 on June 9, you’d have to declare that gain as a taxable event in 2015. Fair enough. But did you have to account for swings in the value if you used your bitcoin to purchase a vacation on Expedia or to order a pizza? The IRS’s move seemed to undermine bitcoin’s potential for use as a currency." Vigna, Paul. The Age of Cryptocurrency: How Bitcoin and Digital Money Are Challenging the Global Economic Order (p. 260). St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition. 

However, the key regulatory action against Bitcoin came from the FDIC and DOJ:

"bitcoiners would report that agents from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the body charged with cleaning up failed banks so that insured depositors can be kept whole, were pressuring bank compliance officers not to work with bitcoiners. It’s hard to verify this claim. The FDIC had long communicated its concerns to bankers over supposedly high-risk categories of merchants, and bitcoin businesses were told by bank compliance officers they were included in those groups...

The U.S. Department of Justice, too, sent banks messages that contradicted FinCEN’s accommodating message. In 2013, the DOJ launched an initiative known as Operation Choke Point, in which it investigated banks dealing with merchants in businesses that weren’t necessarily illegal but were considered high fraud risks. Miami-based lawyer Andrew Ittleman, who has become something of an accidental expert on the subject, told us that Operation Choke Point now occupied most of his time and that primarily his clients were legal providers of bitcoin services and medical marijuana, along with a few pornographers and gun dealers. The law was having a chilling effect: banks might not be breaking the law by servicing such businesses, but the risk of an audit from the DOJ was enough to dissuade them from doing so. Ittleman fought hard for his clients, who were denied a vital instrument of financial access, but it was an uphill battle. The matter, he said, should be taken up to the Supreme Court by civil rights activists such as the American Civil Liberties Union." (ibid p. 258-259)

Why are governments so worried about Bitcoin?

The WSJ article cited above gives a clue:

"Beijing’s crackdown on bitcoin is part of a broader effort to root out risks to the country’s financial system. Officials earlier this year circulated a draft of anti-money-laundering rules for bitcoin exchanges, a powerful warning, even though the regulations were never formalized, according to people familiar with the matter...Virtual currencies in theory allow holders to bypass China’s traditional banking system to move money outside its capital-controlled borders. That could make it more difficult for Chinese regulators to maintain a tight grip on the yuan." [Emphasis added]

Cryptocurrency has its roots in the anarchist activists and others who saw Bitcoin as a way to challenge the power of banking sector. Given that Bitcoin had its debut during the Financial Crisis, it may have been reasonable to believe that there would be sufficient groundswell to believe that the cryptocurrency would gain popularity.

However, popularity in the realm of currency and capital is not sufficient to change institutional realities of societies. 

The reality of societies today is that financial institutions, and corporations more broadly, represent institutions that keep the society together. Since they hold the keys of the society, ultimately they will control the change that will proliferate through society. And something that undermines the ability of the society's today to control capital flows is pretty much a national security issue - and can expect a response that reflects that reality. In other words, it was reasonable to expect the Empire to Strike Back as they did. 

Can we ever expect a corporate-sponsored cryptocurrency? 

Given the way power works, the only ones that can really challenge banks' hegemony are other corporations. For example, Walmart teams up with generic drug makers (in competition with expensive brand-name alternatives) to reduce the healthcare benefits they pay to their employees.

One requirement would be to have direct access to customers so they can actually convert their cash into that digital currency. For example, online realtors are dependent on banks and their electronic payment networks to essentially get cash into the system. 

So likely a retailer alliance could be something that poses a challenge to banks and their networks. 

Amazon already has Amazon Coin, but I think that if they teamed up with Walmart you would have something that basically has wide acceptance. And that's when the games will begin.

Retailers also have an incentive to cut-out the banks and save those credit card fees. However, for this to have user acceptance the retailers would need to give their consumers a cut. 

But would this be a true cryptocurrency? 

Such a currency would likely take a permissioned or private blockchain route. Essentially, there will be a need for 'independent verifiers' (instead of miners) that will ensure that the transactions are properly accounted for. This is likely cheaper than using miners which are costly in terms of the energy costs that have to be paid. 

Although I think external auditors could play the role of the independent verifier, these systems can be highly automated and an assurance model can be developed where you have real-time assurance as the source documents would be digital. This is assuming that the cryptographic keys can be relied on for such a purpose and auditors are able to get "effortless" access to such evidence and systems. So it may lead to a renaissance in the audit but may help auditors realize their potential within the field of audit data analytics and more broadly as data scientists. 

This speaks to one of the key aspects of automated audits that I raised in this post. As promised, my plan is to delve deeper on this topic, where we can look at how blockchain can facilitate AI or automated audits. 

Ultimately, banks play a critical role in extending credit which essentially makes them gatekeepers of the consumer economy. However, other companies, largely the tech sector, are hoarding cash:

Courtesy of Business Insider

So the question is whether these non-banks could move into bank territory. For example, Rogers Wireless (cell phone provider) is also a bank. That being said, it likely won't be a revolution but could be something that evolves over time that steadily erodes bank power. However, that would mean that the banks would take this lying down and I don't think that the Empire will go out without a fight.

Author: Malik Datardina, CPA, CA, CISA. Malik works at Auvenir as a GRC Strategist that is working to transform the engagement experience for accounting firms and their clients. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW, Auvenir (or its affiliates), CPA Canada or anyone else

Public versus Permissioned Blockchain: All of the above?

Earlier this year, I attended the American Banker's conference on Blockchain.

One of the sessions that attracted me to the conference was the session, "The Debate: Permissioned vs. Permissionless Blockchains".

This is one of those good old tech "religious" debates on whether the future is open or closed - similar to open source versus proprietary software debates of old.

As for public blockchain this is referring to Bitcoin or Ethereum.

As for permissioned or closed blockchains, I had written an earlier post where I explored Goldman's take on the "permissioned blockchain" where the participants are known to each other.  I had noted in the post that the "consensus mechanism in the permissioned blockchain is quite different than it's public counterpart, which relies on the proof of work (POW)... This is not the case for permissioned system which require the consortium who set-up the blockchain to determine how they will work with each other". Some main examples of permissioned are R3, Hyperledger, and NASDAQ's Linq. The following video gives a quick breakdown of Hyperledger and the key features of a permissioned ledger:

Before seeing the debate (more of a spirited discussion), was that permissioned was going to win out.

To be honest, what I see as the main obstacle of the public blockchain is the amount of energy it needs to sustain itself.  Linked to that is how much more energy it would require to hit the level of Visa or other credit card transaction processing to become mainstream.

It's not to say there aren't other issues, such as confidentiality and regulatory opposition to the technology, but I see this as one of the key challenges. So I thought we would at least see permissioned ledgers dominate at the outset.

However, what I realized after seeing the debate was that I wasn't approaching this from the right perspective.

What Siddharth Kalla (Chief Technology Officer, Acupay) noted in the debate was that you need to think what's the equivalent of Google and the blockchain. What he was saying was to think of blockchain as the equivalent of the Internet: how could we have predicted that TCP/IP would have ushered in the technology-giant we now know as Google? 

That concept hit my mind like a bolt of lightning: think about all the things that Google has brought about, search, gmail, Android, and cloud-based office productivity. 

That's the power of open.

And that's what I realized is that I needed to think of bitcoin or Ethereum as the Internet of Value's first proof-of-concept (POC). There will be someway to overcome the limitations I noted above and make it viable. It's only matter of time before the equivalent of Sergey Brin and Larry Page will unleash the power of open on the public blockchain. 

So what about the permissioned blockchain? Will it die out?

Where I am is that this not about one or the other. Rather, each solves for different problems. The public blockchain is about exchanging value with strangers. The permissioned blockchain is about exchanging value with private parties that an entity regularly deals with. In a gross oversimplification of the latter, it is a "secured-shared-spreadsheet" that replaces the routine exchange of spreadsheets by email. I like the term distributed ledger ledger technology, as used by the World Economic Forum, to describe the latter. 

Although the two are closely linked now in terms of community and development, eventually the two communities will separate based on what societal or business challenge they address.