[ad_1]
The blockchains of the consortium have shown their failures in recent history. From R3 Corda's muffled partnerships with Hyperledger's extremely slow development-time banking partnerships, consortia chains have shown that they do not have the business models, partnerships and plans to stay viable in today's blockchain landscape. .
Blockchains of the Consortium: Restricted Potential
Consortia chains are authorized block strings available for specific organization groups. The consortia are intended for use primarily in the banking and related sectors.
As its name suggests, a chain of consortia is essentially a group of related institutions, each running its own node on the same network of block chains. By working together, the goal of a consortium is to reduce the costs badociated with operating and maintenance costs, as well as high transaction speeds.
To give an example, consider a consortium chain used by banks and other financial institutions. (Like BRICS). Negotiation, settlement times and clearing could all be mapped to a consortium as a private or semi-private channel. As all corporate nodes in the network are connected and reach a consensus for transactions, this model could significantly reduce fraud, transaction costs, settlement times, and so on.
Unfortunately for the consortia, they have so far been far less successful than their (unrivaled) counterparts in the public channel – and most of these problems are related to commercial and non-technical issues.
The four main channels of the consortium are Corda de R3, Hyperledger Fabric, Enterprise Ethereum and Microsoft Azure, which recently announced the creation of its Azure Blockchain service.
Despite their logical and promising premise, chains of consortia of significant or significant size have not yet materialized.
The absence of economic model
The first problem is related to money. Consortia chains lack tokens to motivate developers and entrepreneurs to actually develop and use their blockchains and therefore lack a viable business model. In simple terms, creating a consortium is expensive and unprofitable like launching an ICO. The devteam.space website estimates that it costs "$ 700 per day" to hire a single Hyperledger Fabric developer.
Partly because of the lack of business model, the progress of adoption of these consortia has been very slow compared to the basics of users of public channels such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.
Recognizing the problem of its business model, Hyperledger Fabric added support for developers to create their own FabTokens as an Alpha feature in Hyperledger Fabric 2.0.
Unstable relationships
However, the essential fact that undermines the legitimacy of the consortium's block chains is past instability and the failure of commercial relations. In simple terms, if companies of different sizes, intentions, and expectations can not work together, how can consortia even begin to train and cooperate?
The problem is that many consortiums are made up of groups of competitors, such as the Mobility Open Blockchain Initiative (MOBI), which of course raises concerns about data privacy and protecting sensitive business badets.
In other words, trust is reintroduced into the system. (So why not just use a database or launch our own lucrative token?)
But to give some specific failures in recent history. R3 lost partnerships with two big banks: JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs. The irresistible need to launch your own digital token may have been for something since the unveiling of its own "coin".
The CEO of Ripple, for example, said that this "JPM Coin" did not understand what he called the "AOL launch" cryptocurrency after Netscape. Although the executive states that the XRP token of its startup is the standard protocol for the transfer of value online.
So who will become the internet? Who will be the intranet? Will this virtual money internet be funded by a tech startup, a bank, a government or will it be something else that looks quite like a service? public Bitcoin?
The banking consortium's approach is not going very well. Morgan Stanley, Banco Santander SA and National Australian Bank are among the others to leave the R3 group. To make matters worse for R3, the company reports that it lacks money; would have collected $ 103 million to create its consortium of banks.
The Hyperledger project also encountered funding and partnership issues. Last December, Reuters reported that 15 members either cut their financial support for the project or decided to leave entirely.
Internet Intranet like JPMorgan Coin Bitcoin
Consortia chains are not doing as well as their public counterparts. Reasons for which they are nuanced and complicated, but are mainly limited to funding and lack of cooperation between consortium members whose interests and incentives may vary.
Although consortia chains are unlikely to disappear, we can expect much slower development times and progress than Bitcoin and Ethereum.
The first, in particular, has more than ten years of free-access organic network effect accumulating over time. This is of particular importance. As the last network effect, some companies can not activate security and fundamentals. Otherwise, trust is reintroduced.
Exclusive consortium projects, on the other hand, actually create something that looks like a valuable intranet. It remains to be seen whether the transaction costs will offset the other costs of decentralization.
In the meantime, however, investor interest is fading for the JPM coin list.
Would you use AOL today? Or would you use the Internet? Bitcoin or a dollar under the JPMorgan Coin brand?
Pictures via Shutterstock
Source link
