I do not think I've ever seen such a “dumb take” on public and decentralized blockchains as this one just simply puts me out of place trying to understand how stupid a take it is and yet, isn't realized.
I guess this is what happens when you're trying to say whatever bad shits about your competitors to make yourself look good.
I'd say tho, it's always a bad look for oneself when what is being said carries no real weight of relevancy.
The CEO of JPMorgan’s Onyx Blockchain, a private clone of Ethereum for permissioned institutional transactions, dropped a silly take on public blockchains in relation to the adoption of it by institutions like Blackrock for the tokenization of traditional investment assets.
Public blockchains are still not adequate for executing large amounts of transactions, according to a JPMorgan ex.
During the BIS Innovation Summit on May 7, Umar Farooq, CEO of JPMorgan’s Onyx blockchain-based payment platform, said:
“I think you almost need something like [a Unified Ledger]. I mean, it’s actually almost a necessity because if you look at […] public blockchain ledgers, they are not fit for purpose for large transactions today.”
The CEO’s comments came in response to the Unified Ledger, a concept introduced by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) last year that aims to support central bank money flows, tokenized deposits and digital assets on its network.
Farooq further explained that if a $100 million transaction were to fail, public blockchain validators can’t be held accountable. Farooq said:
“Who do I sue? [...] You need to get somewhere where people can do trusted transactions between financial institutions with some sort of accountability in the system.”
First of, what the fuck does he mean by a transaction failing? In what universe is a failed transaction a big of a deal?
Isn't it a known fact that events like high volume network activities can lead to several transactions being slowed and some eventually failing?
What is so wrong about that?
Or better question: if a transaction fails, isn't the right thing to do is reinitiate it?
Isn't this a public display of ignorance and stupidity because the way I see it, it almost wants to sound like a failed transaction on a public and decentralized blockchain means a “loss of funds” in some way.
This is what I make of the statement or should I say how I believe he's trying to make it sound, low blow huh?
Anyone that has done his research on decentralized and public blockchains understands that nobody is promising a network of zero-failed transactions.
What is promised is privacy, control, low fee in some cases and borderless transactions, nothing more or less.
Saying that institutions need to operate on networks with some sort of accountability in the system is not a surprise to us, what Umar Farooq is really talking about is needing a centralized power to oversee transaction flows.
And frankly, I think he might simply not understand the appeal of self-sovereign networks and is trying so hard to make what he doesn't understand look bad because what accountability are you looking for in a system that you'd never need to worry about anyone but you controlling your assets?
Moreover, JPMorgan’s Farooq argued that the cryptocurrencies issued on public blockchains create false incentives aiming to drive more users to the networks to push the price of the coin up. He noted that blockchains, like the internet, should be considered a public good:
“We need to get to an evolution point where the technology starts to be seen as a public good versus as a means to enrich.”
False incentives?
Now this is the proof we need to say that Umar Farooq truly lacks an understanding of decentralized blockchains.
How does one look at a fully functional ecosystem running for more than a decade without centralized control, going about it smoothly and then choosing to criticize the one thing that fundamentally holds up the system?
The very structure that makes public blockchains work is what someone calls false incentives?
So the trillion dollar market capitalization of the cryptocurrency ecosystem is all false data innit?
Computer generated figures like the banking system right?
Figures without verifiable reserves right?
Quite comical to see a bank of such status be represented in such a foolish light, this has to be the lowest attempt to talk-down on crypto innovations.
Evidently, proof that we are doing something right!