Community

I think the regulations are very clear regarding client funds and safeguarding, it is the firms and individuals that create the issues. That said a set of regulatory standards, with legal penalties, that could be applied to the auditors who take on any regulated business is long overdue. The auditors are the bridge or conduit between the firm and the regulators, and by making their role responsible under the statute would ensure at the very least that all bank balances and safeguarding funds were accurately identified and reported.  As a very good audit manager once said to me on a potential regulated acquisition, start with the bank statements and work backward...

Stage 1 of the RTGS.global network goes live in the next 2 months and fully embraces ISO 20022. Whilst being the first network to deliver ISO 20022 as a standard globally, it also delivers its participant banks the opportunity to experience the unique benefits of atomic settlement.

The challenger Banks and Fintech community are currently largely excluded from the economic response initiatives launched by HM Treasury. This is a massive mistake given the shift to alternative lending and the promotion of a competitive Financial Services marketplace, all under the current Government. It is red tape and not red lines that are preventing the industry from joining and supporting the essential economic battle that the country faces, as the medical challenges subside. It is also a sad fact that the economic death rate of businesses and the consequent unemployment is likely to far exceed the tragic human cost we are now facing from Covid-19.   

This is probably correct and is exactly why we are responding to requests to accelerate our deployment of RTGS.global the interbank liquidity network. Stage 1 starts in June.  

great news see https://www.finextra.com/blogposting/18664/the-start

Now is the time to engineer in new solutions that reduce costs, friction and deliver bank interoperable service levels 24 x 7 x 365. Our RTGS.global pilot remains on track to start in June as we operate the first global atomic settlement system that is achieving sub-100ms transaction completion between the US, Singapore, and Australia.

Excellent initiative and well done to the 15!

Customer service level is a rare word in the world of banking, however, it is the #1 consideration if you are Big Tech or Fintech. Add to that the ability for Big Tech and Fintech to innovate and copy the marketing techniques of fast moving consumer goods (FMCG), without a historic bank governance layer, and the challenge, speed to market and opportunity is clear.

Cloud,  is an area of active discussion and the various cloud providers have different approaches to the market. I believe that Microsoft currently holds the cybersecurity lead, using it as a key value-added differentiator, which becomes clear during a procurement process. I shared this point with the Basel Committee on Banking Standards during a meeting at the Bank of England. This is also an example of how Big Tech firms are also responding and leading industry-wide challenges, in the absence of market collaboration from the historic incumbents.  

An excellent transparent approach, well done! 

Having sat and listened to a group of very senior economists and academics from around the world debate the world of crypto and blockchain at the Bank of Finland this week, I walk away with two big questions or are they actually serious worries?

The first is Forking, the ability for a lone miner, or miners in concert to split the blockchain, this has occurred already when BitCoin and Bitcash "split". 

The second is a  consequence of forking and that is Orphaned Blocks - theses are the blocks that hold or held a "monetary" value that is left isolated and worthless on the dead side of a fork. 

As this is apparently really possible, does it imply that no DLT transaction blocks are actually safe from fork isolation and consequent value destruction hence perhaps the Ripple statement above?