Tingting Xu - Topic News - Shenzhen 02 December, 2019, 10:02 1 like

No, i don't agree.  Before banking system exists, there was the private, personal banking.  Traditional bank will soon finds ways to fit in, but the blockchain has not guarentee any safety.

Melvin Haskins - Haston International Limited - 02 December, 2019, 10:47 1 like

I would be interested in a breakdown of the amount of business carried out with banks by individuals compared to companies, shops and corporations. It seems to me that Mr. Jenkins is only talking about private individuals. In other words, a breakdown by both volume and value would help to understand what he is getting at. Businesses provide banks significant funding through fees and charges - far more than individuals - and are unlikely to be interested in Open Banking.

A Finextra member 02 December, 2019, 13:31 1 like

" he sees banking moving to a "golden age" with a customer-first approach and streamlined services" Yes this move back to a stakehodler culture is what the capitalistic market requires.  This means companies, in this case bankd, focus on what their customers need.  If Branches are not necessary so be it.  If sexy user itnerfaces are required build them.  Blockchain while intriguing is all about removing the intermediary.  THis idea that "Uber has negated the need for the intermediary of a taxi company or licensed body" makes no sense.  Uber simply inserted themselves into the system as the new intermediary.

What is changing is not the nature of the function it is the actors who perform the functions.  We still need regulation, central banks and other mechanisms society inserted to protect the citizen.

Russell Bell - Fastbase Ltd - Wellington 03 December, 2019, 02:51 0 likes

Regards removing intermediaries, if you picture the present-day Uber model as an only partial realisation of a more far-reaching idea, then the template is applicable.

Imagine an open-source ride sharing app, not controlled by any company, where your payment goes to the driver via a market-model escrow service, providing arms-length mediation of disputes.  With the reputation score for drivers, passengers and mediators handled much as is done now, following a social-media model.

Thus no intermediary between passenger and driver, except for the escrow service.  The escrow and dispute resolution being an application-level function, specific to the ride-sharing app.  Using an underlying blockchain-based payment service that provides simple "irreversible" payments only, i.e. unlike the credit-card model.

The real Uber isn't like this of course, though nevertheless for the moment their price and service is pretty good, and will likely remain so while the company continues to focus on building market share, and while it remains nimble enough to stay a step ahead of local regulators.

Ketharaman Swaminathan - GTM360 Marketing Solutions - Pune 03 December, 2019, 10:09 1 like

"Uber has negated the need for the intermediary of a taxi company" is one of the most surreal statements I've come across in a long term.

Take advanced markets. Uber has merely replaced the taxi company as a different intermediary.

Then take emerging markets like India. There was no taxi company before. Riders paid cash to Drivers. End of story. Uber came in saying it's a taxi booking platform, sale / purchase is between Driver Partner and Rider. But government found a good source of tax in rideshare, which it never got in the old taxi regime. It made Uber charge and collect 18% Goods & Services Tax and remit it to the government. Uber became an intermediary in an industry that never had one earlier.