Skip to main content

DeFi the Odds

The financial system as we currently recognize it is largely characterized by the centralization of everything. The issuance of money, the performance of banking services, and the facilitation of market transactions are all performed by entities that exercise outsized (or in some instances, complete) control over these functions. In other words, there aren't a ton of players in the provision of financial services.

The U.S. government is the sole issuer of our currency. As of last year, the top 15 bank holding companies in the U.S. held $13.7T (yes, T for trillion) in assets (out of a total $20T). There are three major U.S. stock exchanges that facilitate the exchange of billions of securities on a daily basis. Those bank holding companies and stock exchanges (not to mention the broker-dealers that facilitate the exchange of those billions of securities each day) operate in a heavily regulated space. This is a pretty simplified overview but I think it demonstrates the takeaway: the vast majority of the activity in our financial system is facilitated by a handful of players and centrally regulated. But does it have to be this way?

According to a growing camp in the distributed ledger technology/cryptocurrency space, no, it does not have to be this way. And it is from this perspective that the idea of decentralized finance, known as DeFi for short, emerges.

So many important financial system functions are centralized because it is simply more efficient to have fewer players in the space. I mean, it seems much more efficient to have a few entities that are experts that can settle large volumes of transactions at the end of the day and maintain records of the who, what, where (sometimes) and when as opposed to thousands of entities. Even with the seeming efficiency of having fewer entities, it still takes a lot of time for securities transactions and bank transactions to settle. But distributed ledger technology is capable of performing those same settlement functions much more efficiently--both in terms of time and in terms of cost. Distributed ledger technology can settle transactions at more regular intervals and it presents an opportunity to minimize (or even eliminate) the need for intermediaries in transactions. Intermediaries equal increased transaction costs. The case for the technology is so compelling that many of your favorite bank holding companies have invested in it.

But big banks don't have a place in the DeFi utopia. DeFi purists may imagine a world in which individuals are able to perform peer-to-peer trades of securities without a broker. Or perhaps individuals maintain some form of currency or other asset on a blockchain with which they can conduct peer-to-peer transactions, like pay for a cup of coffee, without a payments processor. Or maybe a community creates its own home insurance pool that is maintained on a distributed ledger and payouts only occur when certain conditions are met. Or what about a rural township with no bank but with a blockchain that facilitates individuals with surplus money lending directly to their neighborhood businesses in need. The possibilities are endless.

However, there is one significant hurdle to this decentralized financial utopia and that is government. Taxes, the elimination of organized crime, the elimination of terrorism, anti-corruption measures, anti-fraud measures, financial stability. The list of goals that are reflected in the complicated web of federal financial regulation is lengthy. And the government ceding even an iota of oversight of the national financial system is unlikely. When you throw in the brute political power embodied by the handful of players that are essentially responsible for keeping the money moving, the odds dwindle even further.

But we can all dream, right? What do you think about DeFi? Is it a future for all? Or a future for some? Let me know by email (info@blockchainblawg.com) or on Twitter (@blockchainblawg).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Rundown on CBDCs

Everyday there is a news report about a country that is "exploring" or "studying" the possibility of developing a central bank digital currency (CBDC). In the past few days, I've read articles about Rwanda, Israel and France looking to pilot programs with CBDCs. And yesterday, the Bank of International Settlements announced its backing of the development of CBDCs. With approximately 80% of central banks around the world taking a closer look at CBDCs, now is as good a time as any to learn more about them. What Are They? A central bank digital currency is exactly what it sounds like--a digital currency issued by a central bank. In the same way our central bank, the Federal Reserve, issues the U.S. dollar, it would similarly issue some official U.S. digital currency ('digital dollar'). This is pretty much where the simplicity of it all ends. Things get really hairy (really fast) when central banks have to figure out how CBDCs fit into a traditional financ

ABCs of DeF(i)

The summer of 2020 is notable for a host of reasons. A pandemic. #BLM protests. USPS shenanigans. But within the blockchain/crypto space, the summer of 2020 will be remembered as "DeFi Summer." Short for "decentralized finance," DeFi refers to a system of automated financial arrangements stored and executed on a distributed ledger such as blockchain. One of my business faves, Mark Cuban, recently touted the potential for DeFi to explode in the next 10 years. I may be biased but I agree; DeFi has the potential to revolutionize finance. Automation is Key We know that blockchain can facilitate peer-to-peer transactions in a trustless environment, that transactions happen without the need for a third party intermediary, and that an immutable record of the transaction is stored on the ledger. In other words, transactions happen automatically and records of transactions are incapable of being changed. This is why bitcoin was created. This is blockchain 1.0. We also know

A Changing Tide. But Not Really.

I almost titled this post, "An Open Love Letter to Rep. Darren Soto" but I thought that might be weird. I landed on [whatever it is] because it has recently occurred to me that there may be significant legislation around blockchain coming out of Congress this session. Rep. Soto (FL-09) has been one of blockchain's biggest champions on Capitol Hill and I expect that will continue to be the case. In anticipation of "big things blockin," I thought I'd revisit two blockchain bills that made it out of the House of Representatives during the last congressional session. Given the change in the make-up of the Senate, maybe we'll see them again. But maybe we won't need to see them again....? Stay tuned. The first of the two bills was the Blockchain Innovation Act. This legislation sought to have the Department of Commerce and Federal Trade Commission study the use of blockchain technology in commerce and assess its fraud and security risks and benefits. This