Topic: Continuous Linked Settlement (Read 404 times)

Ok, this shit is all fine and dandy except:

Nobody wants a 100% premined fiatcoin run by fractional reserve banks that are by definition bankrupt at all times.

Where doest thou sign up for your fiat scam sir???

Settlement is when large sets of payments are regularly settled. Settlement market is typically made of banks, payment processors, money transmitters, etc. -- none of which has shown interest in using bitcoin for settlement (some are looking into bitcoin as payment)
Payment is a form of settlement, particularly when it is inter bank. I regularly deal with payments going astray, typo's, wrong currency, tracing cash movements. The current cash settlement system at banks could be greatly improved with a blockchain. When it comes to more advanced settlement (say Delivery vs Payment where there is an atomic exchange of assets, i.e. one doesnt move without the other) there would have to be matching (both sides have to instruct same details). Haven't seen addressed in blockchain (but probably havent been paying attention).

Bank transfers are highly regulated and International transfers are even more of a hassle. The actual process of transfer of value is very simple and if that's all Bitcoin offers, there is very little value add. In fact, you can pretty much write off banks using bitcoin to transfer value for the following reasons:
    The reason they need a reserve bank account is that many countries have regulations regarding how much of their money can flow in or out. Many Reserve Banks want the option to block a transfer if it violates currency export limits.
    Disclosure requirements
    Error resolution and cancellation requirements (Note that bitcoin is irreversible. A wrong payment cant be reversed unlike current interbank protocol)
    Most banks are required to use the FedWire fund transfer system.
There is a lot more chance that private parties may use bitcoin as a settlement layer if there is an actual incentive to use it (I just can't think of any right now)

Bitcoin can work as a settlement layer, but only after it has substantive capacity and has absorbed enough of the real world economy. A settlement later only works when demand for access to that network overwhelms the existing space on that network. From a solid currency base we can abstract away to a settlement layer marginally and slowly.
But you can't go the opposite direction - a magical settlement layer won't have any value on it to entice users to jump through hoops when another coin with simpler, on-blockchain transactions suffice.
Right now, with a market cap of a measley $6b and many alternatives, people aren't willing to get on the bitcoin blockchain. There are too many alternatives that work just as well.

I'm guessing Bitcoin's value as a settlement layer is little to none. After all, bank transfers and hawala have been doing settlement between big players very well for centuries.
What would incentivize them to move to bitcoin? I can't think why JP Morgan would move money to wells fargo using bitcoin instead of their own internal systems with checks and balances and regulatory compliance developed over decades.
Why would Publix settle their accounts with suppliers using bitcoin? I see no real advantage that is big enough to nudge them to move.
The only real value to create for Bitcoin is a payment system for individuals.
To all the folks here debating "it can't scale, it can't be done" my suggestion is get it done or prove that it can't be done.

There's a system called Continuous Linked Settlement, operated by the Continuous Linked Settlement Bank under (I think) the Bank of International Settlements. This is essentially a central bank for central banks, where the worlds top 50 or banks including central banks, maintain balances in the worlds top 10 currencies for international settlements. This is how the majority of international FX trades are settled. The rest are settled bilaterally through direct vostro and nostro accounts (latin for yours and mine) between correspondent and respondent banks. The cost and complexity isn't actually related to the underlying medium of exchange (fiat balances kept in core banking systems), transfer of value (payment systems) or the network (SWIFT) but in the integration across all the channel, product, trading, treasury, risk, processing, compliance, fraud, reporting etc systems within a bank and out to customers. Also banks generally have entirely separate systems in each country, and each country generally has a regime of compliance completely different to each other. Reducing complexity, cost, risk and increasing standardisation and automation is the key yes: but this is a massive job and not as straight forward as just adding a cryptocurrency based settlement layer. Payment services need to reduce friction not increase it, so you need to provide a better service than paypal, not a much worse system, in order to compete. Finally, as an architect of core banking and payment systems for many years I can tell you first hand that commercial and central banking systems are vastly superior in cost and speed to any massively distributed consensus based public cryptocurrency system that can ever be.