Respectfully, I think you're missing the forest through the trees here. A couple of points:
- A DLT-adjacent technology was likely a political prereq from higher-ups to do something in digital assets even if you could, in theory, design the system on a traditional database setup
- A DLT-adjacent technology is also helpful from the perspective of onboarding other types of assets (bonds, repos, whatever). DAML is a built-out language that exists, even if, from a performance standpoint, they might need to move somewhere else for a production launch
- The Fed put those disclaimers in to stop the idiots who fearmonger about the most banal of technologies in wCBDC because they see a big scary acronym they saw on Twitter (also why CBDC is considered out of scope despite central bank reserves being functionally the same thing for the purposes of this POC)
- There is zero chance the market will accept an actual web3/decentralized solution (and for good reason since that would be 100x more difficult a political sell and arguably would never truly graft appropriately in a fully regulated environment) - they'll recreate the current system with DTCC/Fed and co, and eventually pare down the intermediaries in the system piece by piece if its successful
- The lack of automation is because it's a POC, an actual implementation would be way more automated, and parties like the CCP and CSD would almost certainly be directly onboarded (in addition to the banks themselves having their own partition)
I think you're underrating how much of a culture shift this potentially still represents in tokenization for banks/traditional institutions even if they are still learning to walk here
Thank you these are all very fair points and I don’t think I disagree with your comments, quite the opposite. Talking about such things is always easier than building and implementing and my comments are based on the published document and my interpretation of it which could be wrong of course. I don’t see value in this concept and less so in how it’s designed but I do understand that DLT in banking is an uphill struggle.
Respectfully, I think you're missing the forest through the trees here. A couple of points:
- A DLT-adjacent technology was likely a political prereq from higher-ups to do something in digital assets even if you could, in theory, design the system on a traditional database setup
- A DLT-adjacent technology is also helpful from the perspective of onboarding other types of assets (bonds, repos, whatever). DAML is a built-out language that exists, even if, from a performance standpoint, they might need to move somewhere else for a production launch
- The Fed put those disclaimers in to stop the idiots who fearmonger about the most banal of technologies in wCBDC because they see a big scary acronym they saw on Twitter (also why CBDC is considered out of scope despite central bank reserves being functionally the same thing for the purposes of this POC)
- There is zero chance the market will accept an actual web3/decentralized solution (and for good reason since that would be 100x more difficult a political sell and arguably would never truly graft appropriately in a fully regulated environment) - they'll recreate the current system with DTCC/Fed and co, and eventually pare down the intermediaries in the system piece by piece if its successful
- The lack of automation is because it's a POC, an actual implementation would be way more automated, and parties like the CCP and CSD would almost certainly be directly onboarded (in addition to the banks themselves having their own partition)
I think you're underrating how much of a culture shift this potentially still represents in tokenization for banks/traditional institutions even if they are still learning to walk here
Thank you these are all very fair points and I don’t think I disagree with your comments, quite the opposite. Talking about such things is always easier than building and implementing and my comments are based on the published document and my interpretation of it which could be wrong of course. I don’t see value in this concept and less so in how it’s designed but I do understand that DLT in banking is an uphill struggle.