Community

This doesn't really move the needle much in terms of open finance. The issue of common APIs, their cost to create, maintain and for those to integrate with means the scaling costs are not great. I still maintain that we must move away from this approach to APIs and move towards one where the customer is centric. By this I mean the customer has their own data and is the one who controls its sharing, not allows sharing of data held by financial institutions by handing out API tokens...

I would love to see how privacy is at the heart of any DLT based CBDC. Any bank/payment provider that has direct access to a node can see all the transactions, this means you can very quickly use this platform for a form of insider trading, just by using basic volume analysis tooling - we have seen this with Bitcoin and other DLT based crypto assets. 

Privacy and security must be front and centre for any currency, CBDC can not be an exception...

I'm curious as to why it would be just the CIO. There would have been others involved under SMR. Key decision makers are also captured, these would have reported into the CIO, so how are they not also being fined, or were they found to have done everything correclty? 

Some of this is over complex. For example, we dont need an open policy framework where my wallet knows what jurisdiction I am in. For identity to work, I need to have an ID that is accepted in the US and an ID that is acceptable in the EU. This doesn't mean its the same ID, rather it could be from a different set of identity credentials i hold, some that can be shared. If we keep things simple, by following a Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI) model and its principles, then most of the challenges are mitigated.

Digital ID should be SSI simply because a) its my identity I should own it, no third party ever does, and only with SSI can I really control it, and b) because it solves so many of the challenges associated if data isn't self sovereign. 

Where governments really need to start looking is at privacy and security of digital ID solutions - and thats not just the wallet, thats the TYPE of credentials that are stored and how capable they are with regards to zero knowledge proofs (ZKP) and selective disclosure. Then if I move between jurisdictions it is a technology thing, if the US supports AnonCreds for example, and the EU does, then all challenges are solved....

A good post here explains the issues with credentials and why we need to ensure that a minimum bar is met with regards to privacy for most identity based solutions. If that bar is consistent, then policy becomes a matter of what types of credentials are trusted and supported primarily. 

A call for trust, a call for privacy, a call for AnonCreds – ID Crypt Global News and Blog

I don't agree with this. I can get trust from the service via technology using true digital identity without friction and without challenging everytime. Digital Identity can be and is with certain solution, significantly more trustworthy than phyiscal identity.

Fraudsters are able to pic at the cracks in risk based approaches - this is why push payment fraud is growing. Again, true digital identity can combat this significantly. 

A few points stand out here...

Bridge currencies add in friction, cost and additional levels of risk. In addition, we know that a hub and spoke model also adds in costs over time. 

So while the concept seems to solve challenges, it introduces yet more. 

The solution is always to have better bi-lateral relationships. The reason why we don't have these is because of the troublesome admin and security challenges associated with Corespondent banking as it is. 

However, there are new correspondent banking models out there. 2.0 using intermediary platforms, and more importantly Correspondent Banking 3.0 when coupled with solutions like RTGS.global. 

If we want to solve these challenges then we must remove friction points, we need to remove "hops", "intermediaries" and add in choice of providers and improve access...

It's always good to see new entrants into the banking sector. It was always going to be the way that banks like Monzo, Starling and in this case ClearBank lead the way for others to follow.

Banking is changing fast, very fast. When i first spoke of Banking-as-a-Service in 2015 I didnt know exactly where it would lead, but I had an idea that the concept was big. Fast forward 7 years and BaaS is really a global proposition that is shaping the world we live in. Fast forward a few more years, and I predict Settlement Fabric will be the same ....

Congrats to the Bank of London team, fab raise and to do it at that valuation in these economic conditions shows the power of BaaS....

The concept of open banking is the right one, unfortunately the implementation (IMHO) across Europe (PSD2) and in the UK with its implementation of Open Banking is somewhat wrong. Sadly the implementation will always cause nagging questions in the minds of account holders regarding security - and even if you think that Open Banking is just as secure, the point here is many don't, so the implementation is wrong.

Hopefuly countries that follow in the Open Banking revolution are able to implement a far more account holder centric control mechanism and therefore unlock the massive potential that is open finance. 

I think this is fab news. Another example of new banks showing that customer experiences realy makes a difference. 

It just shows what can be achieved in a relatively short period of time in the world of banking, with a clear USP, good leadership, great tech and a fab understanding of exactly what your proposition is... Well done the team, its great news for Oxbury and great news for FinTech!

These sorts of trails are interesting - but they often skip out the challenging aspects of financial services. This is no different. We can all prove the value of a technology and method of working if we skirt round the big issues and challenges.

Let's look at central banks ability to run KYC/AML across CBDC holders, let's look at who is eligble to have legal claim over a sepcific CBDC, let's look at data transit, data at rest, soverign ownership. Sadly here, DLT introduces more challenges than it solves...