Page 20 – Dug Campbell

The Falling Price of Technology

Short post tonight as I’m involved in the Creative Currencies Chiasma event. Given the high quality discussions I’ve already had with people, I have no doubt whatsoever that I’ll have plenty to write about once the event wraps up on Thursday evening. But in the meantime, here’s a couple of quick facts.

Progress continues apace, as does the falling price of technology. It’s worth looking at some of the numbers I think, laid out as they are helpfully in this post to get a sense of perspective. For example, I found it interesting to see that:

Since 1980, the price of computers has dropped 99.9%.
Since 1980, the price of software has dropped 99.3% (unsurprising when you consider how much is free).
Since 1980, the price of TV’s has dropped 97%.
Since 2000, the price of cameras has now dropped by 75%.

Obviously there are a variety of factors that have helped to influence how costs have been reduced (or perceived to have fallen, in the case of inflation) but there’s some handy numbers there if you’re looking for a few solid examples of how innovation can drive down costs.

The Cake Is A Lie

If you haven’t come across “the cake is a lie” meme, try reading the quick post on Medium by Tobias van Schneider, Design Lead at Spotify (aside: anyone else notice just how good Medium is now becoming as a platform for both content creation and discovery?). In essence, the statement means “your promised reward is merely a fictitious motivator”. In other words, you’re striving for something that you’ll never get.

Schneider puts the idea in the context of risk aversion, pointing out that as we get older, we devote more of our time to trying to avoid losing the many things that we’ve accumulated (income, personal image, gadgets) than we do to pursuing growth. Hence the struggle that banks and other established businesses have to actively pursue innovation at any meaningful level. Research has proved the loss aversion theory which tells us that people tend to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains.

On a corporate level, you could argue that’s no bad thing. If that wasn’t the case, we simply wouldn’t have a business environment in which a startup with “nothing to lose” can seek to disrupt an established industry. However on an individual level, the warning should be considered more deeply. Schneider suggests that every time you face a big decision, ask yourself whether your dilemma about whether or not to proceed is simply down to the fact that you’re looking to protect that cake. If so, be very wary.

You don’t get happy by putting all your energies into protecting a cake that you never actually eat.

Today’s my 100th successive blog post. I’ve been blogging (on this website and elsewhere) for a few years now but never with this level of consistency. So what changed?

As most people are aware, I’m a fan of Seth Godin’s work. And as he says, “The only purpose of starting is to finish, and while the projects we do are never really finished, they must ship”. The perfect is the enemy of the good. If I was worried about perfect grammar, ground-breaking commentary and creating a comprehensive database of knowledge on the subjects that interest me, I would never have got started. Posts would take days rather than hours and we all know that real life has a habit of getting in the way whenever it can.

If we’ve never met in person, you might not know that I enjoy acting. And if there’s one lesson that I’ve learned from my entirely undistinguished but thoroughly enjoyable time on stage to date, it’s that the very best actors are invariably the ones who aren’t acting. Or – more accurately – they’re living in the moment and responding naturally to everything that takes place in front of them. Undoubtedly, there’s talent involved. But, even more importantly, I believe that it’s also a habit. Crucially, they’ve managed to construct an environment in which they’re free to take the risk of getting things wrong. The best are never afraid of falling flat on their faces because that’s what gives them the chance to develop their ideas. It’s all about eating the cake, not protecting it.

I guess that’s what this blog represents to me. An attempt to build and maintain a place where I can do the same. For those who are reading it, thanks! For those who aren’t – well, I intend to keep on going. Because to quote Godin once more, “The cost of being wrong is less than the cost of doing nothing”.

PS. Here’s a list of the posts that were some of the most enjoyable to write (see it’s not all about Bitcoin, honest…)

Cyberwhatnow?

So it’s not just me then.

Over the past few months, there have been an increasing number of security breaches following which governments, corporations and press have been quick to point out the dangers of “cyberspace”. The commentary hit a crescendo in recent months in the run up to Christmas with the Sony hack and the misinformation that circled around the cancelled screenings of ‘The Interview’.

To me, the term cyberspace just feels incredibly…dated. I know it’s wrong but no matter what happens, every time I hear someone utter that word, it seems to conjure up a (possibly unfair) presumption in my mind about how up to speed the person is with technology. It conjures up an older generation warning up the dangers of that internet that lives in that box with a screen in the corner of your room.

Unfair but still perhaps that’s really shouldn’t be a surprise. After all the term “cyberspace” was originally coined by William Gibson in a short story called ‘Burning Chrome‘ some 33 years ago, all the way back in 1982.

After reading this article in GigaOm by David Meyer today, I can see where my prejudice comes from. The fact is that “cyberspace” in some way envisages a separate world in some sense within which different rules must surely to apply. Yet technology is developing at such a pace that the online world upon which we increasingly rely is simultaneously becoming ever more deeply embedded within our daily lives – not least because of the connectivity on our ever-present mobile phones and the slow but perceptible shift that we’re seeing as our daily items are increasingly being fitted with sensors to develop their own online presence.

Here’s my favourite quote from the article:-

“The problem with “cyberspace” is that the word suggests a place where different rules apply, and as such it can be misleading. We all need protection from theft and fraud, whether it takes place online or offline. If we’re tracked and spied upon in the online layer, the effect is similar (though more surreptitious) to being stalked around town and in the living room. Online harassment can be as painful as being menaced in the street. We cannot allow the impact of rights violations to be downplayed because they take place online, and we create such a risk by referring to the online world as another, less immediate place.”

As David Meyer writes, such distinctions are false. It’s all the real world now

The Byzantine Generals’ Problem

As I’ve written about recently, gauging the detail with which to explain Bitcoin to a newcomer is a skill in itself – and I make no claims to be an expert at doing so. However, for those who question why the blockchain’s such a big deal, I find the Byzantine General’s Problem sometimes helps. So – mainly for my own benefit as I continue to try to simplify this explanation – here’s how I’ve found myself explaining it recently. It’s not for everyone but it may be useful to someone. If you understand Bitcoin in detail, please forgive the slight simplification in parts.

Why is the blockchain so important?

We now have a technology that provides us with a permanent and complete record of every transaction that’s ever taken place. Despite the fact that there is no one gatekeeper controlling how transactions are recorded, the record represents the truth and can’t be fiddled with after the fact. That by itself is pretty amazing.

How can you be certain?

In short, because it solves the Byzantine Generals’ Problem. This is an old computer science problem that was thought to be unsolvable before Bitcoin.

OK – what’s the Byzantine Generals’ Problem?

Picture the scene. A castle in the Middle Ages is under siege. There’s 300 baddies in a Castle surrounded by five armies of 100 men each who’ve set up camp in the surrounding hills. Each army is commanded by a General.

500 men v 300 men. The result is surely a foregone conclusion. 500 attackers will easily overpower the 300 men inside the Castle. However, if they don’t all attack simultaneously, there’s a very real risk that the attackers will be outnumbered, the attack will be repelled and they’ll go on to lose the battle.

So how can the Generals all agree on the same time to attack the Castle? These days, you’d simply need a quick conference call and the Generals could all agree to attack at 9pm. But back in the Byzantine Age, things were a little more complicated:-

The “9pm attack” message could only be passed on by a rider on horseback. He has to ride around visiting each General in turn to confirm.
Any General may be a traitor and in league with the baddies in the Castle.

What happened before Bitcoin (and the blockchain)?

General 1 decides to attack at 9pm. He sends his rider out with the message (“9pm attack”) to deliver it to General 2. Upon arrival, General 2 reads the message, notes the time of the attack and signs the message to also say “9pm attack”. He sends the rider on to share the message with General 3.

But – there’s a problem. General 3 is a traitor. He wants to the attack to fail. So when he gets the message, he rips it up and replaces it with a new message that says “8pm attack”.

The rider continues unaware. General 4 now receives a message saying “8pm attack”. He notes the time, signs the message to say “8pm attack” and sends this on to General 5.

Now the message has gone around everyone. But we have a problem. The dishonest General has disrupted the result. We now we have two generals (4 and 5) with 200 men attacking the Castle at 8pm. Expecting the others to join them, they instead get outnumbered and overpowered by the 300 defenders. The victorious baddies now stream out of the Castle and join forces with the treacherous General 3. Suddenly the two remaining Generals (1 and 2) have only 200 men and find themselves fighting 400 men.

Result: the (dishonest) baddies win.

What happened after Bitcoin (and the blockchain)?

General 1 wants to send the same message (“attack at 9pm”). But this time, there are two new rules he must abide by:-

He must spend 10 minutes preparing any new message for it to be valid; and
He must include the history of every previous message in every new message.

So let’s see what happens this time. As before, General 1 sends the message (“9pm attack”) with the rider on horseback. This time, however, it’s different for General 2 because he knows two things for certain:

The message must have taken 10 minutes to prepare; and
There are no previous messages – so it must be the truth*

(*or, more accurately, even if General 1 is a traitor and put in the wrong time, it doesn’t matter – if the majority of Generals followed this suggestion and went with a 9pm attack time, they’ll still be outnumber those in the Castle and win the battle)

Ok, so now it’s time for General 2 to send a message. As required, he spends 10 minutes preparing the new message and he embeds General 1’s message into his own. The rider then sets off with this message (now in fact, it’s two messages ‘chained’ together as the second has the first embedded within it).

Now it gets to General 3. Remember, he’s the traitor. What does he do? Last time, he changed the message to “8pm attack” so that Generals 4 and 5 would attack early and get overpowered. But all of sudden, now he can’t. Why? Because under the new rules, he has only 10 minutes to prepare a message for General 4. He has two options:

Cheat by changing the message to “8pm attack” – but to do this, he needs to (a) spend 10 minutes creating his message, and then (b) spend an EXTRA 2 x 10 minutes working to create replacement “8pm attack” messages from Generals 1 and 2 to embed these into his message – and, what’s more, (c) carry out that 30 minutes of work within the next 10 minutes to avoid the other Generals knowing that he’s a traitor; or
Admit defeat and prepare the “9pm attack” message during that 10 minutes.

You’ve lost me…

Every General has got no more than 10 minutes to provide the next General with something that would take more than 10 minutes to fake if they were trying to be dishonest. If they can’t deliver it within 10 minutes, everyone knows they’re dishonest and ignores them, rendering their attempts to mislead others useless.

Which means…

In Bitcoin, the network of computers comes to an agreement every ten minutes about which transactions are valid and adds these to the record.

The 10 minutes work in this example is known as Proof of Work. This work is hard (time-consuming) to do, but it’s easy for others to check whether or not it’s been done, making it valuable. An example of proof of work might be if someone asked you to write down all the numbers from 1 to 1000 by hand. Someone can easily scan the piece of paper to check that you’ve done the work – but for them to replicate the work, they’d have to actually sit down and spend all that time writing those numbers again themselves.

The result is that we now have a technological invention which means that, for the first time, it is possible for a distributed network of individuals (thousands of computers situated around the globe, instead of just five Generals around one Castle) to reach agreement (‘consensus’) about every transaction that takes place, to record those details and to make those records mathematically impossible to forge.

Whilst the most common use of the blockchain at present relates to the bitcoins that everything thinks of (or not) as currency, this is in no way the full story. Once you start to consider how the blockchain structure itself can be used to record any number of other transactions, documents, accounting records, shares or indeed any other transaction that could prove to be far too risky to entrust to a centralised organisation, you realise how great it is for all of us that those Byzantine Generals can now finally agree on their plans for the evening.

It’s simply the start.

Why Banks Can’t Innovate

It’s a common rule of thumb in business that the bigger the organisation, the harder it is to innovate. Unable to foresee, or respond quickly to the changes that inevitably occur, groupthink and decision by committee become the default modus operandi.

Nowhere is this more prevalent than in large, entrenched and heavily regulated industries and particularly those that, quite literally in many cases, have a licence to print money. Hence the rapid growth in FinTech.

I read an excellent post by Simon Taylor today which gives a valuable explanation of precisely why this happens. In short, these organisations suffer from the curse of over-thinking every possibility when there are simply too many variables for anyone to come up with a definitive forecast of what lies ahead.

With such analysis paralysis, decision making is slowed down to a speed that’s often ineffective competitively. They find themselves in a difficult position. There are so many increasingly complex areas within any financial business that operates at scale (such as cybersecurity or regulatory compliance) that the management is unable make any decisions without the input of a vast array of specialists in each area. As such expert findings are reported back, they are invariably challenged and subsequently diluted by those who invariably know less about the area in question.

The reality is that you can’t blaze a trail when you’re left with nothing but compromises to implement.

And this is exactly why VC’s are currently getting so excited about FinTech. If you’re looking for investments that have the potential to provide above-average returns, why not start by focusing on new businesses that will disrupt huge, slow incumbent businesses that are becoming increasingly ill-equipped to deal with the advance of both technology and societal change with each passing day. As Simon points out, Alibaba, Amazon, Tencent and Facebook all have banking licences. How can the old guard possibly defend themselves?

Perhaps one route is fpr them to simply accept how ill-equipped they are to pursue innovation. Instead they should adopt any of a number of alternative approaches to seeking out that elusive competitive advantage in the coming shakedown. Simon’s suggestions for strategies that could be adopted are as follows:-

Buy innovative businesses – simply buy the result that you need (hence the current prevalence of financial support for incubators, accelerators etc.)
Launch/acquire a Challenger Brand – create a popular standalone entity that is unburdened by the underwhelming public image of its creator.
Adopt the mentality of a technology company – let’s be blunt: older people are less likely to understand how younger people want to access financial services than those of a younger demographic. And structured software development methods will drive innovation.
Really understand how users view your product – rather than paying lip service to the principle, incorporate modern digital and product feedback loops.
Let smaller, autonomous teams make decisions – a phrase likely to strike fear into the heart of any regulator.
Fail more frequently – fail fast and learn from your mistakes.

I can’t imagine that anyone would argue that the sixth suggestion in particular must be the one that scares the pants off the banks. In such a heavily legislated sector such as banking (and – topic for another day – Law), there is a complete lack of understanding about the value of learning from failure. Not great. Risk aversion is poison to innovation.

There’s a clear overall message here. The reality is that just like the proverbial oil tanker, the current financial institutions lack both the culture and the capability to really turn at any useful speed in order to adapt to developments in the wider ecosystem. Given the fact that there will inevitably be another financial crisis (perhaps sooner rather than later), it’s hardly surprising that VC’s and entrepreneurs have identified (whether via Bitcoin or the wider FinTech movement in general) that time’s running out for us to drive innovation in this crucial area.

Unlike with consumer tech where innovation may be successful without being universally adopted (I love Twitter but how many of our parents can honestly say it’s changed their lives?), an improvement in the financial machinery of our economies is essential given the extent to which every single one is so increasingly intertwined across local, national and international locations.

Because, as JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon was heard to say after the 2008 financial meltdown:

“My daughter called me from school one day and said, ‘Dad, what’s a financial crisis?’ And without trying to be funny, I said, ‘It’s something that happens every five to seven years.’ “

The fight for net neutrality rumbles on

The Net Neutrality issue rumbles on in the US but there are some initial indications that progress is being made. The FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler announced that he intends to recommend the adoption of rules to keep the internet “fair, fast and open”. Of course, that’s the exact opposite of what the broadband network operators have been fighting for as they continue to push for the right to have a two-tier internet whereby some traffic is afforded a higher priority than others. That’s clearly a dangerous route for us all to go down so the comments this week are certainly positive.

I’ve written about net neutrality before but of course a lot of the commentary is being driven by those in the US. So if you want a quick summary of the topic, I recommend you start with the seriously funny section by John Oliver from a few months back.

But what’s happening in the UK and the rest of Europe?

Well, it’s not all roses over here. Tim Berners-Lee has just published a guest blog post on the European Commission website addressing the issue directly.

Whilst the noises from the European Parliament have been very positive, the current UK government have forced the major ISP’s to block access to certain sites (for a range of reasons from illegal filesharing to imposing parental controls by default). TBL points to Dutch research that shows that net neutrality stimulates innovation by enabling competition on both price and quality, providing the end-user with better options and allowing the growth of new businesses. As he points out:

“Maintaining this net neutrality is critical for the future of the Web and the future of human rights, innovation and progress in Europe.”

If the US does end up making the correct decision, then let’s hope we don’t blow it over here.

The Increasing Entanglement of Modern Knowledge

“Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated” (Confucius)

Most people would agree that the world is becoming more complex. That may be because we delight in making things intricate. But mostly it’s down to the fact that we’re collectively discovering more detail about an ever increasing number of subjects. At the same time, the barriers to the free exchange of this information are being increasingly dismantled.

However, when it comes to thinking about the infrastructure of society, this article stuck in my head recently. It argues that we’ve reached a level of complexity in modern life that means that success (in preventing accidents, identifying bugs, whatever) can only now be achieved by systems that we must first build to collect the necessary inputs, analyse and information and then process the results at speed to ensure that we can avoid the unwanted outcome. Or, to put it another way – we aren’t now individually capable of picking up on things that go wrong. We invariably have to subcontract this essential work out to machines.

When it comes down to relying on a system to direct airplanes to ensure that they don’t collide mid-air, we can be fairly certain that the system will follow instructions to the letter. That’s what computers do. The problem is that once you remove humans from the equation, the safety net (real or imagined) disappears.

In short, people no longer fully understand the technology that surrounds them. American computer scientist Danny Hillis has a great term for this – he calls it “The Entanglement“. Unlike the Enlightenment which was all about the generation of ideas, knowledge is now developing so quickly that we have reached a new stage in which the common reality is that we are incapable of absorbing sufficient quantities of such information in order to be able to take everything into account that we need to.

Put simply, even the things that we rely on today incorporate elements of other things that we have no knowledge of.

Think of chess. We’ve used the game as a proxy for thousands of years to assess intelligence. Yet now it’s indisputable that humans lag far behind supercomputers when it comes to an ability to calculate the vast number of available options during a game. Or mobile phone numbers. How many can you name? Or are we simply outsourcing our knowledge to machines?

It seems quite clear that knowledge “exists at the network level – not in the heads of individual human beings“.

“If you’re not confused, you’re not paying attention.” (Tom Peters)

Tasks: Do More. Faster. Easier

Most people face productivity challenges in their daily lives. There’s increasingly more to do but less time to do it in. That could be down to any number of factors – the fact that multi-tasking is actually impossible (we can only switch between distinct tasks), that we’re simply wasting more time on the internet or simply the fact that technology has enabled us to create a life that’s just, well, harder.

So if you’re looking to be more productive with every minute, Seth Godin has some advice. And like all good advice, it’s blindingly obvious when you see it written down. It’s all about understanding the existing model so that you can move up the levels that are common to all tasks:-

Get better and more skilful at your current tasks.
Delegate: find cheaper people to do your tasks.
Invest in technology that increases your team’s output.
Invent new technology that pushes that further still.
Pick better things to work on (don’t simply react to others’ demands).

Try running that framework with all the work that’s on your plate. The only thing that’s certain is that you can improve your productivity. The question is whether you’re willing to try.

Rely on things that won’t change in the future

When successful entrepreneurial business leaders are cornered by journalists, they’re often asked to give predictions. They might be pressed to share a few thoughts on how their particular industry might develop over the next few years, or to provide some further insight into future trends.

Of course, for those that are blazing their own trails, there’s great merit in doing so. After all, these individuals have proved that they can:

accurately identify an area of (often explosive) growth;
come up with a product or service that addresses a pain point for customers that increases as the sector expands; and
executed a strategy over a prolonged period of time which – if not quite flawless – contains very few missteps (the hardest skill of all).

Success ultimately requires a huge collection of variables to align correctly at the right time. Hence the reason that so few are able to pull it off on a grand scale. But for those that do, the cachet of entrepreneurial business leader is bestowed willingly upon them by others. And rightly so – they called it, committed to it and delivered it.

However, asking about the future often comes with a subtext. Most people share a common desire to minimise risk and so they will seek out the certainty of a guarantee if at all possible. Removing even one option from a long list of many possible outcomes within an uncertain world appeals to the natural human tendency to prefer a decision that avoids loss to one that results in gains. It’s a fine line between accelerating your learning by using other’s war stories and simply seeking a ‘how-to’ shortcut.

Anyway, here’s how Jeff Bezos answers those who are seeking to predict the future:-

“I very frequently get the question: ‘What’s going to change in the next 10 years?’ And that is a very interesting question; it’s a very common one. I almost never get the question: ‘What’s not going to change in the next 10 years?’ And I submit to you that that second question is actually the more important of the two — because you can build a business strategy around the things that are stable in time. …

[I]n our retail business, we know that customers want low prices, and I know that’s going to be true 10 years from now. They want fast delivery; they want vast selection. It’s impossible to imagine a future 10 years from now where a customer comes up and says, ‘Jeff I love Amazon; I just wish the prices were a little higher,’ [or] ‘I love Amazon; I just wish you’d deliver a little more slowly.’ Impossible.

And so the effort we put into those things, spinning those things up, we know the energy we put into it today will still be paying off dividends for our customers 10 years from now. When you have something that you know is true, even over the long term, you can afford to put a lot of energy into it.”

Identify the things that are never going to change and base your business on those fundamentals. Work with a laser-like focus on improving the things that you guarantee will remain relevant to your business over the long run and develop the business from there.

It’s a different way of looking at things – and no doubt goes part of the way towards explaining just why Bezos has enjoyed massive business success to date.

Bitcoin, Accounting and the Blockchain

I usually find that the easiest way to explain Bitcoin is to focus on the blockchain. By sidestepping questions about the nature of money until later on the conversation, people usually get the value immediately of a permanent global record that’s accessible to all and incapable of being forged. Most within the business community understand why a ledger is so valuable.

Single-entry bookkeeping

It’s easy for people to understand the limitations of single-entry accounting where you keep track of your affairs by simply compiling a long list of numbers that you then add up. For all but the simplest personal undertaking, the risks of using this system are unacceptable. Mistakes can be made in adding up the figures or false figures inserted by others stealing money whilst covering their tracks. There are few safety nets. With little evidence available, it can be extremely hard to identify where any issue lies until it is far too late.

Double-entry bookkeeping

This problem was significantly reduced some 500 or so years ago when the vastly more robust method of double-entry bookkeeping came into widespread usage. Popularised by the pioneering Medici Bank in Italy, every transaction that is carried out by a business using this system requires a change to (at least) two accounts within its records. You debit one account and credit the other. In short, money can’t just appear (or disappear). It always has both an origin and destination. Anyone auditing the books now can quickly identify areas where the story doesn’t add up.

So what’s this got to do with Bitcoin?

Whilst double-entry bookkeeping has been the foundation of corporate accounting for centuries, Bitcoin – or more accurately the blockchain itself – now provides a way to introduce an even more powerful method that has been discussed for a number of years – triple-entry bookkeeping. The simplest explanation here is (inevitably!) found on another of Richard Gendall Brown’s excellent recent posts. However, for those of you who want my summary rather than his (far clearer) explanation, here goes:-

Let’s imagine Company A buys goods from Company B. In today’s world, that means:-
- Company A will change its accounts accordingly – by recording the cash going out/goods going in.
- Company B will change its accounts accordingly – by recording the goods going out/cash going in.
But what if the record of that transaction also gets recorded by a third party?
Third party = the blockchain, which verifies (cryptographically seals) each transaction and issues a receipt.

Result: every transaction would have a corresponding entry on the books of the other that would have to be verified by the blockchain. Now every transaction is effectively recorded in three places.

Now things can get really interesting. As a public, secure, global platform, the blockchain can then be interrogated by auditors investigating whether transactions truly took place. With such details living on a digital, permanent and trustworthy platform, the potential for cost-saving (and automation) in this area becomes fascinating.

Place questions of transparency to one side for a moment. We could have a system which contains a permanent record of all corporate transactions that have, as a matter of fact, taken place. Systems could then be developed to analyse data on a massive scale – and perhaps even provide an early warning when areas of significant risk start to develop within large businesses or even economies.

Could we do this tomorrow?

Not quite. The basics of the technology are there but, as Richard points out, there are current limitations that need to be overcome. For one, there is a radical transparency here that may not be suitable for all businesses (although it’s not hard to imagine charities viewing this as a feature). We also have a few questions around the scalability of the technology which need to be addressed. Finally, to be clear, whilst this system provides conclusive proof that a transaction itself actually took place, the valuation of such transactions on the books of each individual business would remain for the determination of the auditor. Nonetheless, the timesaving (and cost) in auditors’ fees would surely be significant.

It seems more likely to me that blockchain technology itself (as opposed to Bitcoin’s blockchain) will be used here. You could certainly imagine there being value in different types of transactions being recorded on hundreds of standalone blockchains. 2015 will inevitably see far more debate around the value of fully decentralised versus ‘semi-decentralised’ (!) systems, given the release of technologies such as those created by Eris Industries and the increased involvement of both financial services companies and regulators in the scene. I can imagine that the creation of a blockchain that seeks to record every single transfer of every company share listed in the UK might provoke some heated discussion from those who are currently invested in the current process, for example.

Ultimately, we identified centuries ago that relying on internal ledgers were significantly flawed. Building a system that required double entries provided us with much greater comfort. Now with the advent of the blockchain, once we start to apply ourselves to addressing some of these questions, we have the potential to take that efficiency to another level still.