观察：经合组织：下一件大事 – 未来一年工业和政府对DLT的重大发展

什么阻碍了主流采用？政府需要或想要扮演什么角色？经合组织第二届全球区块链政策论坛的下一件大事全体小组旨在聆听区块链和分布式账本技术（DLT）的真正影响者：从行业领导者到监管负责人。 Forkast.News主编刘安琪主持了讨论，并指出过去一年中出现的三个主题已经在塑造区块链创新：

1.私人与公共区块链……还是第三种方式？
2.增加法规
3.跨境合作

经合组织邀请代表美国和欧洲工业和代理机构的专家小组成员：

• Joseph Lubin是以太坊的联合创始人和ConsenSys的创始人 – ConsenSys是一家区块链风险投资工作室，将以太坊智能合约区块链平台应用于企业，流程和企业。 Lubin先生在各个行业工作，专注于解决区块链行业的治理问题。
• PēterisZilgalvis是DG CONNECT数字单一市场理事会数字创新和区块链部门负责人，也是欧盟委员会FinTech特别工作组的联合主席。
• David Treat是埃森哲全球区块链负责人兼埃森哲金融服务区块链业务全球主管的董事总经理 – 吸引所有行业的客户，从研发到全面整合。他还是企业以太坊联盟的副主​​席。
• Valerie Szczepanik是SEC – 证券交易委员会数字资产和创新高级顾问。 Szczepanik女士协调美国证券交易委员会所有部门和办事处在美国证券法应用于新兴数字资产技术方面的努力 – 包括ICO和加密货币
• Muhammed Emin Torunoglu是土耳其贸易部行为公共政策和颠覆性技术部门的负责人。该部门负责将颠覆性技术整合到决策生态系统中。

在此观看经济合作与发展组织全球区块链政策峰会2019年“下一件大事”全体小组的讨论，讨论政府如何考虑权力下放，以及区块链如何帮助支持外贸。什么是下一件大事将会影响事物的发展方向？

完整的成绩单

刘嘉玲：全部
对。大家早上好。 Bonjour，Çava和我将使用所有语言
在欧洲，但我在学校的语言方面并不擅长，所以我会停下来
那里。希望你昨天第一天过得愉快。很多引人入胜的
有趣的对话，当然是在全体会议上，还有
研讨会。我很荣幸能够指导下一届全体会议
经合组织全球区块链政策论坛的第二天。因为我见过并订婚了
与你们中的许多人一起观察了整个过程中发生的对话
过去24小时，36小时，它是如此令人难以置信的鼓舞人心，鼓舞人心的真正看到了
技术和区块链在如此高水平的加密货币中的应用。
下一件大事，我确信这是每个​​人都在想的事情：主要的
未来一年工业和政府对DLT的发展。这是
我们现在要参与的对话。

刘嘉玲：还有
让我介绍一下我们尊敬的小组成员。如果你们都可以前往
我介绍你的舞台。 Joe Lubin是以太坊的联合创始人和创始人
ConsenSys。这是一个区块链风险投资工作室，适用于以太坊智能
合约区块链平台到企业。鲁宾先生，当然是有效的
跨行业，重点是解决区块链中的治理问题
行业;这个领域的思想领袖之一。 PēterisZilgalvis是负责人
数字单一市场中数字创新与区块链的单位
DG Connect董事会，是欧盟委员会的联合主席
FinTech特别工作组。

刘嘉玲：我
也想向您介绍全球董事总经理David Treat
埃森哲的区块链负责人和埃森哲金融服务的全球负责人
阻止练习。他聘请了从研发到行业的所有行业的客户
全面整合。他还是Enterprise Ethereum的副主席
联盟。 Valerie Szczepanik是数字资产和高级顾问
美国证券交易委员会的创新。女士。
Szczepanik负责协调美国证券交易委员会所有部门和办事处的工作
美国证券法在新兴数字资产技术中的应用
包括ICO和加密货币。当然，最后但并非最不重要的是艾敏
Torunoglu。他是行为公共政策和破坏性的负责人
土耳其贸易部技术部。该部门是
负责将颠覆性技术整合到政策制定生态系统中。
所以你有它：我们有监管机构，我们有政策制定者，我们有
顾问，我们有区块链创始人。
因此，在我们讨论“下一件大事”时，让我们现在就开始吧。从每个
你自己独特的观点，现在最大的问题是什么
在未来一年推动区块链增长？

大卫特治：在
这一点不是技术。我认为这项技术正在推进
非常好，驾驶，你知道，我们需要的真正改变
数字世界已有一段时间了。我相信我们会更多地谈论这个问题
小组。但是到了最后，现在我们实际上正在应用它
跨越生态系统生产并影响整个生态系统，这是政策，
治理，生态系统的形成，健康的决策，
从顶层政策和控制到机制和一切的机制
非常日常的登机入门关键管理方面，健康
生态系统的形成以及如何管理它们真的很难，很难
工作。而且我很受鼓舞，因为它正在发生，但很难。

约瑟夫鲁宾：所以
你想要争议，所以我首先要与大卫不同意，我是谁
通常同意。这是技术。它是。我们要解决这个问题
社会问题，我认为这很顺利。会有争议的
问题，我们将弄清楚这种深刻而强大的新技术如何
适合旧规则系统并修改旧规则系统，这是一个社交系统
讨论我们可能会在许多司法管辖区内进行讨论
十年或两年，也许更长。但真正的问题是获得技术
更实用。这是关于可扩展性的。这是每个交易的数量
公共链中的第二个吞吐量以及构建的其他链
对于较窄的背景。这是关于技术的可用性，以便我们
不要盯着这些长长的字母数字字符串并使其可用
就像互联网一样。这是关于隐私和机密性。所以这些都是
所有领域，我们正在取得令人难以置信的快速进展。区块链是关于
五年，或者至少是区块链的智能合约版本
五岁。比特币可以追溯到10年前，但确实很窄
在最初几年的活动，所以这是一项深刻的技术
还是一种婴儿技术;和过去深刻的技术革命，
像汽车，手机和电力一样，它们都是去中心化的
多于五年。

刘嘉玲：我们
有技术。我们拥有生态系统关系的结构。和
从你的角度来看，彼得？从欧盟的角度来看？

PēterisZilgalvis：我
会说技术，政策和法律框架正在取得进展
手牵手。我们有30个国家的欧洲区块链合作伙伴
在，你可以说一个监管沙箱，但实施regtech和审计
文件识别解决方案已于今年年底开始实施
当年，跨境政策与政策同时进行。在那儿
障碍是什么？我们将来在法律框架方面需要做些什么吗？和
我也向你提出这个问题。我们显然有分析要做更多的事情
智能合约，相互承认，撤销能力，跨境其他问题;
要启用标记化的东西。我们需要更清晰的法律框架吗？所以我认为
这是一个必须发生的进步。 Joe提到了可扩展性。我们
投资研究。我们希望技术能够发展，但是
政策和法律框架必须与此一起发展，理想情况下
与技术专家一起，与社会一起。

刘嘉玲：瓦莱丽？

Valerie Szczepanik：谢谢
您。我只想说，我今天在这里表达的观点是我自己的，而不是
必然是美国证券交易委员会的那些。但那
说，我认为这是事情的组合。收敛很多
技术似乎是这里的关键驱动因素。我们有云计算，
人工智能，物联网，分布式总账技术，全部
这些事情汇集在一起​​，看看如何变得有趣
技术把它们放在一起。我认为可以提高效率。
我们对这些技术如何为投资者增添有趣的方式感到兴奋
可以与市场，效率和清关的改进相结合
交易和结算，整个市场的创新。但我觉得
这些创新也受到投资者需求的推动。我想我们有一个
一代人真的希望能够与市场良好接触，
轻松高效。所以你有那个司机。你们有些人
对想要投资的新技术感兴趣，谁想要它的一部分
即使它是一个非常小的一块。但他们想投资这项技术和
也受益于它。所以我认为我们在投资领域有一个推动者。
我们有技术驱动因素，但我也想到全世界都有
监管方面的创新。因此，我们有监管机构，他们拥有创新中心
我自己 – Fin Hub–我们都在一起合作。我们希望合作
与技术专家，企业家，他们的顾问，以便我们可以想象这些
合作的事情。

Emin Torunoglu：同样的免责声明。这些观点是我自己的观点，并不反映该部的观点。所以我认为这是技术与监管之间的滞后。通常法规遵循该技术，这是正常的。但区块链有一个独特的案例，因为其增值来自权力下放。这就是为什么大多数用例都是关于支付系统，土地登记或外贸等中心化主题的原因。在这些领域，政府是垄断者，而且规范一些基本上可以取代你在市场中的地位的东西是一个挑战。所以我认为这是我们现在面临的最大挑战。如果我们解决这个挑战，那么它就是要走的路。

刘安琪：嗯，
谢谢你坦率的发言。我的意思是，我认为你已经触及了
我认为有一件事真的是许多讨论的基础：如何
你是否在理智和诚实地管理可能潜在的技术？
用布鲁诺勒迈尔的话来说，威胁“货币主权”
国家，“但也取代了控制机制，政府
机制，国家和主权？这是我想的 – 让我
问乔：你会如何回应业界认为的气候
受到监管，是否参与了这些政策对话？

约瑟夫鲁宾：所以
我们的行业基本上沿着两条主要轨道批准。一个是
无权：无权创新，开源项目，工作人员
项目和探索解决方案空间，这不是纯粹的
技术努力。它嵌入在社会背景中。另一条轨道是
我们在受监管的环境中立即使用这项技术
基本上是公司，其他类型的组织正在采用它
使他们已经做得更好 – 带来信任的合作和
他们正在做的数字原生数字化。我们当然可以
更纯粹的技术方面，我们需要带来我们最好的技术
可能，但最终它将嵌入社会背景。所以
我们需要在不同的司法管辖区讨论人们的需求
与技术有关。就像互联网一样，种类繁多
互联网的使用。其中一些是深色和灰色的，有些则更多
开放和监管。基本上区块链是一种原始技术。我可以设定
因特网上所以我可以使用Internet协议，我可以使用IP地址和端口
数字和我可以做的事情是纯粹的互联网无法调节
技术。但是我们已经建立了社交结构的层次和层次
这样人类可以更容易地使用它，以便我们可以建立规则
进入它我们想要建立。而且以太坊技术总能得到预期
99.9％的技术使用将在两者之间确定
实体，我们将构建规则系统，所以我看到了层次
基于技术的有用性和规则性。

Angie Lau：大卫，你看到当你为企业客户提供技术咨询时，你会看到吗？他们如何将其纳入自己的系统，同时又意识到客户？

大卫特治：一个
几年前我最喜欢的客户说了一些与我相关的事情。所以
从资本市场走出来，这是前三名的高级成员
投资银行说，你知道，当我们坐下时，他说：“戴夫看，
我们开展了一项有点银行业务的对账业务，“对吗？和
部分原因在于资本市场如此迅速地掌握了这一点
特别是，你知道，从最终买家到终极卖家和搬家
资产和现金，我们已经在数字世界。这是电子的
信息坐在服务器上，但它有12种不同的传递，它是一种
出现了大量的消息传递和协调以及数据质量
从资产的流动和价值的变动这一事实来看
在完全独立的路径上并引入各种挑战。我们看
正如乔所说的那样，在这种情况下，工业与工业同样如此
构建，在获取a方面有一个效率切入点
看看现有的系统，这个技术怎么能成为第一个
数字世界中的时间与数字版本和独特性结合在一起
资产的维度？对？有史以来第一次，我们可以拥有一些东西
这在数字世界中是独一无二的。它只存在一次。我们可以
嫁给那个并用标记化的价值直接交易所 – 现金 – 无论如何
形式，并能够直接交易所那些东西是截然不同的。
如果我们停止了“我可以撤消所有消息传递的效率”
在你知道的情况下，无论在什么样的商业环境中发生这种情况
业务流程，“那真的很难过，因为我觉得我们有很多
更大的机会来彻底重新思考和改变整体业务
生态系统和业务流程，这是很多的重点，正在采取
我们的客户通过不仅仅模拟数字化模拟过程的循环
我们在公司历史上做了很多次，对吗？这是一个很棒的广告
我发现从20世纪60年代后期开始，它显示了纽约证券交易所的楼层
对于所有熟悉的人来说，“周三我们会做文书工作”
这个。实际上，在20世纪60年代后期，纸张危机正确，解决方案是
我们将在周三关闭交易所，以便我们能够赶上
文书工作和黑手党偷走 – 我认为估计大约有300人
因为，你知道，那个时期的百万美元是不足的
纸系统。这导致了DTCC的形成。但事实上，我开玩笑
与迈克和罗布一样，你知道，实际上，所做的一切都是代替
把纸质票据推到了DTCC的金库，我们只是
通过管道移动一个零和一个零的手推车，它仍然坐着
在金库中。现在突然间，我们有机会完全转变
重新思考它，因为有史以来第一次，我们可以嫁给一个人的独特性
数字世界中的资产具有现金和存在形式的价值的独特性
直接交易所。

约瑟夫鲁宾：可以
我刚刚补充说，我认为重要的是要提到它
技术专家并不反对监管机构。技术专家
被吸引到这个空间是因为某些系统没有为人们服务
他们可以。它是关于为人们建立更好的系统，以及
当您不必为其制定保护措施时，法规或法律可能会发生变化
人民，当他们基本上信任他们的资产给托管人。和
因此，如果您拥有能够更好地保护人们的系统，那就给人们
更多的经济和政治机构，我认为它会更容易上来
每个人都满意的规定。

刘嘉玲：我
意思是，在一天结束时，许多监管机构和政策制定者确实反映了这一点
公民的利益。然而，这也是公民的一部分
包括企业家和创业公司。你如何平衡？你知道，就像你一样
考虑整体利益，首先，你将如何定义
那有什么好处，你想要实现什么？

PēterisZilgalvis：我
甚至不称之为平衡。我不会说值是在
互相反对。我想说监管框架必须代表，
在我们的例子中，欧洲的价值观或世界其他地区的价值观。而且我愿意
在欧洲价值观中说，创新，创造力，企业家精神，但
那么，如果我们正在谈论说，那么我们就具体说一下这项技术吧
会强调我们通常没有特定技术的规定，
所以不会对区块链进行监管，但我们希望保持社会性
价值观，如投资者保护，消费者保护，保护
基本权利包括隐私。所以我不会说它处于平衡状态。
这并不是彼此对立的。良好的创新，良好的创业精神，
创造力也捍卫了发明者的知识产权。它
也尊重客户;公民;顾客们。所以，我的意思是，我认为
可以找到解决方案。这是必须与之共同发生的事情
技术社区。

PēterisZilgalvis：我
举例说明了我们在公共部门所做的工作，但也有
利益相关者，以及国际信任协会等协会
区块链应用程序，其他参与和发现两种方法
市民的想法，技术现在可以做什么，以及什么
技术可以编程为将来做。并经历了一些
困难的地方，我在准备其中一个问题时提到过
我们现在正在内部集思广益，除此之外
许可和/或半去中心化的区块链，我们也想启用
非常去中心化的区块链中的创新，非常去中心化的区块链。但
再说一次，这不是以投资者保护为代价的消费者
保护，隐私。您如何找到监管接入点？你怎么找到的
有人出错的时候有人回答？这不是一个
平衡。这并没有脱离技术或踩走
革新;这是技术的设计。这是市场的设计。

刘嘉玲：还有
我们正在谈论权力下放，我认为，大卫，我可以评测
我们正在使用的一些语言。但最终，权力下放确实如此
回到人们身边。我们正在谈论纯粹的市场力量。
我们谈论的是从纯粹的自下而上的层面采用。然而，当我们说话时
关于政府，当我们谈论政策时，往往是自上而下的。所以
当你说你正在努力鼓励权力下放时
正在那里发生的创新，你如何从根本上做到这一点
从一个非常自上而下的角色？

PēterisZilgalvis：嗯，
从某种意义上讲，这是自上而下的，我的意思是我们是民主制度;该
欧盟委员会直接，间接地回答，我们有一位新总统和
由民主政府任命的新一组委员。所以，
我的意思是，这应该是自下而上的。所以双方的期望
我想，公民和公民的担忧正在通过他们来到我们这里
至于每个政府。但在设计经济中发生的事情时，我
意思是，这不取决于我们。这是创造力，精力和更好的想法
私营部门和公民。但要确保监管
今天或更好的框架，未来批准的监管框架
明天不要停止可能有益的创新。这是在哪里
你有变化。这种数字技术不是区块链，
或者这种类型的下一个进展，但它是你有一个数据孤岛的地方
企业或受监管的金融机构。这是事情
这是监管机构关注的焦点。然后突然，如果你
有一个非常去中心化的模型，也许它实际上真的回到了
过去。这就像是合伙企业，前公司。但这是一种不同的方式
实际上当你确实需要加强投资者保护时，
消费者保护隐私，那些将成为那样的人
移动。我会说，这是一个知识分子跳跃或挑战
我们有。

刘嘉玲：结束了
在土耳其，艾敏，你运用行为思维来塑造经济和经济
政策。你怎么想，土耳其怎么想这个概念呢？
利用这项技术在经济中创新，也是为了规范和管理
也参与其中？

Emin Torunoglu：是的，这真的是一个挑战，因为在贸易部，我们主要处理外国贸易商的职责，外贸中有许多利益相关者：定制机构，其他国家，不同组织，并了解其需求各方都试图为他们创造一些解决方案是一项挑战。对于这种区块链技术，我们尽可能地与社区进行互动，而在世界各地，对外贸有不同的概念。所以外贸有三大支柱。第一个是货物的运输，物流。第二个是文件的移动，海关程序。第三个是货币流动，贸易融资。所以有区块链联盟正在解决世界上这些类别中的每一个。我们正在与他们交谈，我们正努力将我们的国家融入我们的能力之中。但是你需要非常小心，因为你必须考虑国际法规和我们的财务规定，你必须考虑主权问题。现在我们要做的是了解技术的附加值，为此，我们尽可能地与国际社会，世界贸易组织，世界海关组织和经合组织进行接触。

刘嘉玲：还有
有人会说，在政策方面，它仍然是一个非常去中心化的空间。
瓦莱丽，我相信你会一直听到人们寻求指导
FCC。你是如何协调你得到的所有反馈的？什么
是您在制定时与行业建立的关系
政府间机构政策？

Valerie Szczepanik：部分
finhub是我们的金融创新中心;它真的是一个平台
还有一个门户网站。它是委托内部传播知识的平台
在各种领域，如DLT和人工智能，它也是一个
平台让人们看到我们所在的委员会的一切
在这些不同的领域做：我们所做的陈述，我们带来的案例，
我们已经提出的指导，我们征求的公众意见请求，这一切都得到了
张贴在那一页上。它也是一个门户，所以我们邀请成员
社区进来和我们交谈。我们确实有几十次会议
投资者，企业家，开发商，他们的顾问，我们与他们见面，我们
谈谈他们的项目。我们不能给他们法律建议，但我们可以
当然告诉他们我们如何解释我们的规则和法规，以及在哪里
路标存在。而且，您知道，如果我们发现问题，我们会将其提交给他们，
我们可能会把它们交给另一个监管机构，那些东西。
我们正在努力鼓励人们与我们交谈并获得我们的反馈。
对于我们来说，听听行业内发生的事情以及发生了什么也是非常宝贵的
作为监管机构，我们需要做得更好。我们
在全国各地旅行，进行点对点聚会，这样我们就可以与人们见面
如果他们不能前往DC，可以从各个地区来。我们主持了金融科技
我们将行业和学术界以及其他监管机构聚集在一起的论坛
一个地方谈论技术的复杂问题以及我们如何
一起工作。我们正在招揽一位学者来与之合作
我们在有限的时间内，所以我们可以获得更详细的入职
关于技术的知识。除此之外，我们还与美国的人们联系。
联邦政府。我们一直在与FinCEN和CFTC部门进行沟通
司法财政部，或FSOC的成员，即金融稳定
监督委员会，审视我们有潜力的各种问题
监管重叠，可能存在风险。我们想确保我们的确如此
以适当和一致的方式覆盖地面。我们合作伙伴
与国际社会有很多关系。所以我们参与了IOSCO
证券监管机构;我们有一个ICO网络，在那里我们谈论我们的目标
在市场上看到。我认为，我们向其他司法管辖区提供协助
以及我们如何看待事物，他们如何看待事物。我们想保留
了解国际发展情况。我们参与了
我们帮助了IOSCO金融科技网络，FSB金融创新网络
FATF致力于VASP的AML / KYC标准。所以我们非常投入
在这个社区。我们确实认为有些国际领域
合作至关重要。在某些方面我认为会有更多
例如，AML / KYC的协调，还有其他领域
你知道，证券法一直是不同的
例如，或各种司法管辖区看待事物的方式。但我们可以
合作并帮助社区了解那些不同的司法管辖区
边界和规则是。我认为识别空间很重要
……随着事态的发展，退后一步并获得一张照片非常重要
未来状态可能是什么样的，所以我们可以确定，也许我们已经
解决了问题，但我们不想创造新问题。所以如果我们这样做的话
脱离中介，废除了现在存在的一些中间人
目前的市场结构（它们存在是有原因的，因为它们提供了
例如，恐怖主义融资的阻塞点或它们提供重要的
投资者保护或市场保护），我们必须确保新的
我们创建的生态系统也提供了相同的保护。也许吧
看起来不一样。也许它的结构不一样。也许有
不同的中间人。也许涵盖了这些中间人的职能
通过技术，这也是令人兴奋的。但我认为参与是很重要的
与监管机构。而且我认为我们确实与它有良好的接触
这个小组的人员和其他正在思考的人
这些类型的东西。

Angie Lau：技术是否提供了解决方案？你有私人，许多政府和高级机构都参与其中，然后你有公共区块链。是否存在技术可以提供的互操作性解决方案，允许这种转移数据，权利，个人利益，满足社会结构，规则和中介，正如您所说，提供这些检查点？你怎么看？

约瑟夫鲁宾：是的，
绝对。互操作性已经讨论了三到四年
在不同的协议中，在不同的使用中，甚至使用相同的协议
例如，协议技术，以太坊技术。大卫在说话
在我们坐下来之前，关于事情需要多得多才能得到更多
流动而且更加微妙。没有严格的私人或严格公开;
有很多不同的角色和权限，我们甚至建立了协议
等级，我们建立了对这些系统的不同类型的访问。在我们看来，
信任特征来自最大去中心化，那就是
非常重要。信任特征是这里的深刻发明。
信任特征将使我们作为一个社会从主观，
中心化信任系统，我们依赖于组织或
个人，更客观的信任系统，保证执行
协议，因此您需要最大限度地去中心化该特性。
但你到处都不需要它。所以这是完全合理的，尽管有些
人们会争论这个，有点不合理是完全合理的
去中心化的架构。因此，如果它是一个想要的银行联盟
您可以在他们自己或商品贸易融资平台之间进行互操作
不需要最大的去中心化。拥有它对他们来说真是太棒了
新的信任特征适用于他们的合作，并且有各种方法
链接基本上是侧链接的网络。所以一个例子是
名为Komgo的大宗商品贸易融资网络正在与商品联系起来
交易网络称为Vakt。我们是刚果项目的一部分，那就是
使这些互操作更加流畅。重要的是，你可以采取这些
用于不同目的的各种网络，您可以锚定这些网络，
那些侧链网络，最大限度地进入基础信任层
去中心化协议就像一个定理，或者你可以使用其他的，所谓的
第2层技术，您可以获得高吞吐量，并且您可以做到
那些第二层技术的业务，但你可以肯定，如果
它们被正确地锚定在基础信任层中，即人们所拥有的
这两层系统上的资产或其他价值可以将其价值拉回
安全，回到最大程度上去中心化的网络，如果出现问题
更高的水平。

刘嘉玲：那么
决策者，机构和政府在哪里进入？你认为你想要
进入基层？ You want to go layer one, layer two at the app
level? You said, how do you want to do that?

Joseph Lubin: Usage.
How the technology’s used, not regulating the technology.

Pēteris Zilgalvis: Well,
just agreeing with everything that Joe just said, but there is, I’d say, some
complementary social layers and official layers; you have the standardization
processes, the International Standardization Organization Technical Committee
307, the European Commission, and I think most of the countries in this room
participate. And also on, let’s say, the trust social layer, I can say for a
moment there is an interesting report which is available to all of you on
interoperability on the EU区块链 Observatory and Forum, which is very
well-run along with a lot of great universities by ConsenSys Paris, and thank
you to Joe Lubin and his team for contributing to that. I think you need to get
information out there; technical information, but also societal information.
Interoperability is more than technical interoperability. There’s also legal
interoperability, also interoperability between organizations, also societal
groups, if you take it further as a philosophy. So, I mean, we’re working very
much at the technical level that an international set of policymakers should be
working on. And then also with the societal and technical stakeholders’
organizations with the goal of providing a seamless experience for the
consumer, for the citizen, because that’s when blockchain is really going to
work, when people no longer know, “oh, I’m on the blockchain,” but
they push on an app and it does what they wanted it to do.

David Treat: Interoperability
is one of those – we were talking beforehand -if I can actually finish putting
pen to paper, we’re working on a whole construct around the inadequacy of our
language in this whole space. And interoperability is one of the ways.另一个
one of those examples where I guarantee you that there are portions of this
audience that heard that word differently. I agree with everything you said,
but there’s some people who heard “interoperable,” and they’re
talking about really the integration of a new system with legacy. Or we,
actually some of the team that’s sitting here, we’re just contributing to the
Linux Hyperledger project and interoperability capability, and what we mean by
that in that contribution is to be able to get one DLT-based ecosystem to be
able to work with another DLT-based ecosystem that may be on a different
platform. So, you know, Quorum, and Fabric, or Corda, and the like. And to be
able to have not just the ability to technically move assets between the two,
but have the governance and the policy, the mechanisms and the agreements, the
business, the social contract, you know, to use Joe’s language, between those
two ecosystems and how that should work. And so “interoperability,” I
think we need different words because people are hearing it differently and
mean different things. I think we talked about public and private earlier.一世
think just as Joe said, it’s more nuanced than that. I think we should be
reserving the term public and private for the user population, would be my
vote. I think we should separate that from the notion of the operators of the
systems that are being applied. And you know, again, echoing Joe, that, you
know, there’s a spectrum of creativity and innovation and a dialogue around
that social contract, around what are those requirements of those operators of
the system, where we want, you know, where we are going to have different
levels of comfort in different contexts, and that’s all great. And we have to
work through that, ecosystem by ecosystem, business flow by business flow, and
make those choices. And, you know, just as you said, if we take core capital
markets as one of those, you know, narrow focus areas, we’re never gonna get
away from the need to have someone be the circuit breaker in the system that
choke points or, you know, or the like. In a different social contract
construct, we’ll be very open to different kinds of operators of the systems,
you know, in different settings. And so public-private,
centralized-decentralized, interoperability, you know, the language is too
binary. It’s misheard. We’re talking past each other, and one of our kind of
open calls to this community and others, and we’re working across several
forums, is to propose better language so that we can actually talk more
valuably with what.

Angie Lau: What
do you think people are misunderstanding?

David Treat: Well,
so let’s take public-private, right? Just the term “public
blockchain.” I think too often people denote that as if it’s some sort
of  benevolent NGO providing a service to
the wider population, you know, when we really should be talking about a user population
of, “I want the public to access it,” or “I want it to be a
private group that accesses or uses an application.”

Angie Lau: Or
does it reflect the purity of public, which is it’s truly public, that
everybody gets to engage with it equally, fairly, because of technology;
technology is simply a tool.

David Treat: But
you use the word “engage,” and that’s where I agree. It’s about the
engagement. It’s about who’s engaging with it. But what actually some of us
mean when we say public blockchain is defining who’s operating the system. So a
public restroom operated by the national park system, everyone can use the
public restroom. That’s great. That’s the definition of- it’s a public
restroom. Everyone can use it. The national park system is responsible for
cleaning it up when it’s a mess; replenishing the paper products and, you know,
we’ve chosen an operator for that system, but we’re not talking about- So when
we use the term public blockchain, I think most people most often mean, who are
we allowing to engage with the system and be a user? That’s a tremendously
important construct. But what we’re masking is, what are those social contract
choices we’re making around the operators of the system? And to the point of
the previous speaker, the Taurus speaker talked a little bit about the actual
node operators in the Bitcoin blockchain. The collection of consensus companies
provide critical infrastructure for the Ethereum ecosystem. We don’t talk about
the actual operators. And in a capital markets context, you know, Joe, we
talked about throughput and scalability, you know, the work we did with the DTC
18 months ago, we proved that, you know, a permissioned construct can handle
the entirety of U.S. equities clearing, right? Scalability is not a problem in
that context. And for that user group, we can use a specific set of constructs.
In a different context where it’s a wider social construct, we’re going to use
different operating characteristics. And we’re masking that part of the
dialogue and talking past each other by using a blanket term of “public”
or “private” blockchain.

Joseph Lubin: So the difficulty is that it’s a very young, immature technology ecosystem and it’s moving so fast, and we’re just building subtlety everywhere without… the inner circle can name that subtlety. We often use too many words to name that subtlety. If you take something like “permissionless,” so Ethereum is a permissionless network. It’s permissionless at the open-source layer, where anybody can go in and read the code, inspect it, fork the code, create your own system, permissionlessly, it’s permissionless innovation. It’s permissionless to attach to the system and become a miner, or a validator of transactions on the system. It’s permissionless to upload your smart contracts; build applications on the system. It’s permissionless in some cases to use those applications, it’s permissionless to send transactions of value from a source to a destination. It’s not necessarily permissionless to use an application that I put up on the permissionless blockchain if I don’t allow your address to interact with the functions that are exposed by that smart contract. It’s not permissionless to take this exact same technology and run it on private nodes with private contracts, private access, and there are layers of rules and permissions that we can build in. So it’s going to take quite a while before society is able to point to a thing and name it with one of the Fifty Shades of Permissionless. I look forward to reading your document, actually.

Angie Lau: Another
concept of, I’ll have to use the word, decentralization, is what teams around
the world are building. And so Ethereum is one protocol, and there’s dozens and
dozens of others. And this is growing against the backdrop of what is a very
tense geopolitical environment in which we all live, in which nations are in
conflict, either via trade or otherwise. So I’m based in Hong Kong. I tell this
global story of blockchain technology from my purview in Asia. I can tell you
that what is developing in Asia seems very different – similar, yet different –
but certainly from a different perspective. And so in that spirit of
introducing what sometimes can be different points of view and how markets
engage with each other in perhaps an analog or traditional or legacy system,
and then go up one level and talk about decentralization, talk about protocols,
talk about public blockchains, that are actually happening with international
teams. How do governments, how do policymakers take a look at those communities
there, and participate in that from a very specific point of view when that is
not necessarily shared at the protocol technology level?

Pēteris Zilgalvis: Well, I’ll follow in from the previous topic that I think it’s not useful for us to have very rigid and very narrow definitions. So leading into this topic, if we talk about this European blockchain services infrastructure, it’s not centralized in Brussels. It’s multi-level governance reflecting the way our structure looks; so 28, 30 countries and the European Commission, further going to the cities and regions. So not completely decentralized, so perhaps not fitting a rigid definition, but much, much more decentralized than a lot of infrastructures. Obviously, the next step, and I’ll say again, not getting caught in rigid definitions, this is a global technology and it needs global governance. But global governance and the situation that we have does not automatically mean every country in the world; every blockchain. I had the experience of being, last week, in the second supervisory roundtable of crypto assets organized by the Japanese Financial Services Agency with a lot of the world. And you see the common points we have: the Bank of Japan, for instance, is on the Eurochain, with the Euro area central banks that run node on the blockchain. There is interest from that side to work with Europe, to work with other partners in North America, and in some of these situations, it’s perhaps not going to go so fast. The dialogue is there on the private sector level; some networks are integrating, some other networks and other parts of Asia, perhaps fairly separate, but have ambitions perhaps to come into the other markets.

Pēteris Zilgalvis: So
as much as possible, we have to use the very international fora, like the
International Standardization Organization Technical Committee 307, various
roundtables of supervisors, IOSCO, others on the more security side, which is
not me, to try to find common ground and to make sure as much as possible that
a smart contract – a token solution that we see as legal – that benefits the
consumer, that benefits the economy, can seamlessly move across the globe. But
of course, we will have differences. I mean, we have our own general data
protection regulation on the European Commission, which may differ or be similar
to some other regimes. And we have to find ways to ideally program the
technology program, also, for instance, smart contracts in the future, to
recognize when it’s going from one jurisdiction, from one regime to the other,
and to fulfill the instructions that we as regulators – but we serve the
citizen, so that the citizens want the technology to implement it.

Valerie Szczepanik: Just
kind of blending last two topics, I think there’s a number of cross-border
initiatives multilaterally and bilaterally between and among regulators to try
to encourage innovation. And there’s many international teams, so I get to talk
to folks who have also talked to our counterparts in the U.K., or Japan, or
other places. But one thing, just playing on the idea of terminology, it is
really important that we are all kind of understanding what we’re talking
about. And I think in the blockchain space, perhaps more than other spaces, you
have in precise terms, you have folks on different sides of the pond using
different terminology for the same exact thing. And if we want to regulate the
right way, we really have to understand exactly what we’re talking about. And
so when people come and talk to us, I ask that they bring the technologists
with them, so we can actually go through exactly what’s happening and what
terminology they’re referring to. We don’t want to over-regulate or
under-regulate, so we want to make sure we know exactly what’s going on. And
that’s been critical. But on the cross-border issues, there’s many international
teams and we’ve had the great privilege to talk to them about what they’re
doing on various projects, and I hope to continue of these international,
bilateral and multilateral collaborations on fintech.

Angie Lau: And
cross-border collaboration at the Ministry of Trade in Turkey, you know, this
is an example of where potentially you could use the technology as much as, I
think, about, you know, the policy, but really use the technology as you
function in foreign trade. Do you think that technology is a potential
hindrance, or a help?

David Treat: Well, I think in this case, it’s a help because the promise of blockchain like this, intermediation elimination of middlemen, the trust, the efficiency, those are the problems of foreign trade. So there are many stakeholders, and there are trust issues, there are documents that have to be approved by different government agencies. And I think I’m very lucky to be working at the Ministry of Trade regarding the blockchain technology, because I think there is a lot to do in this respect, and we are pursuing a bilateral approach with other countries. So we have working groups with Singapore and other Asian countries which are very advanced on this issue. But the problem is we couldn’t yet find that killer application, so we couldn’t just show the benefits of the blockchain to our ministers. We are experimenting with it, within our countries and across borders. And it is also, I have to say, like doing a blocking project with two countries is not enough. Because if it’s just two countries, you can use a shared database. You don’t need blockchain for that. It’s like the networking effect. So the more users you have, the more the value that your network will have. So that’s where the international standards and international organizations will come in. But before that, we have to engage with other countries and find that killer application, and that’s what we are trying to do, but it’s a very hard thing to do because there are many things we want.

Angie Lau: So
it’s almost like you need an international OS for foreign trade. Who is working
on that?

Joseph Lubin: So
I like to think of geopolitics from a bottom-up perspective with respect to
this technology. We are seeing populist thrusts over the last few years and
jingoistic rhetoric, and we’re seeing some scary competition between
essentially the Chinese economic, political sphere and the Western world where
supply chains are potentially under threat of bifurcation, which is a very
scary concept for the global economy. This technology again brings automated
objective trust. And so we can build systems that enable actors that don’t
fully trust one another, to trust the data in the systems, to trust the
agreements in the systems. And so you definitely need to get good data into the
systems. So the sensors, the devices will need to have their own trusted
enclaves and their own identities and their own signatures. But if you can get
trustworthy data into these blockchain systems and tamper-proof containers
etc., you can essentially have systems that are going to be unbelievably
difficult to improperly manipulate. And so you can imagine very strong
competitors with lots of animosities still trusting systems, still trusting the
hardware, the chips, etc. that are coming out of one side or the other, and
building the composite systems that we need to build out of the components that
we all need.

Joseph Lubin: And so with respect to supply chains supplying networks, I think we can keep the planet unified using this technology. With respect to higher-level agreements, treaties are in many cases unenforceable. But if we used blockchain-based agreements, and if we stake value in sizes that nation-states actually care about, we can have – and again, it’s not going to be protocol-based consensus, it’s going to have a social assessment to it – we can have counter-parties to agreements stake value and lose that value if they break agreements.

David Treat: Part of what we’re finding successful in working with clients around how to apply this technology is just talking at a very specific level. Your comment about Leo finding the use case, you know, it couldn’t have been more frustrating, right, two or three years ago, there was the mantra of like, “is this a hammer looking for a nail?” It was the lack of specificity as to what’s really happening. And so to be able to break it down into what has actually changed in this new space of innovation, and data infrastructure, and business logic, versus the world we’ve been living in… and to be able to talk more specifically, and I’ll give an example: having the conversation with a client around the data that they currently hold in their data infrastructure. Today – you know, I did talk about this at launch yesterday, so apologies, I’m gonna repeat some of myself of – you know, the winning digital business today is the one that accumulates the most data that they can then feed their machine learning algorithms and create customer insights and personalize, you know, personalized service and the like. And they gather that data by any means possible. It’s this massive data accumulation construct. And they can’t therefore then prove that they are meant to have it. And what this technology has unlocked is that for the first time ever, I can decide, in a user-controlled dynamic, I can choose to share a piece of data with you. And I’m going to encode in this interaction through this technology, the intent, rights, and obligations associated with that in this contract. I’m intending to give it to you, and I’m cryptographically signing it. I want you to have it. And in doing so, I’m giving you rights to use it. And actually, you then owe me obligations back around it. And actually through this innovative technology, we actually have the ability where I could revoke that access. Couldn’t do that today; we have no idea where our data goes, it gets sold, it gets moved, it’s, you know, it’s totally out of our control, and I think we’re all done with the data theft, data breach, you know, I think it’s a lack of privacy. So just taking a client back from our higher level language that we use when talking about the space and saying, what does that mean for you in a business ecosystem, if suddenly you can have a relationship with your clients, where you have a defined, clearly auditable, transparent ability to characterize the intent, rights, and obligations of the data that you are using between each other. And then you have a very powerful conversation of then how does that transform things. Or that you have the same conversation around tokenization and the fact that for the first time ever we can create uniqueness in the digital world. We’ve been living in the copy and paste world for the past 50, 60 years. You’ve no idea if I send you a piece of data what then happens to it. But now suddenly we can have uniqueness in the digital world. And what does that mean? And so bringing the conversation down to those fundamental components of what has actually changed, we’re finding, is then driving much more healthy, much more transformative conversations around how business models can change; how social contracts can change. And then the intent, and I think the opportunity, is to take that much more specific set of concepts to then have a policy conversation and a governance conversation.

Angie Lau: And
does it change? Does it change the thinking? I mean, you’re absolutely right.
Technology has allowed us for the first time ever to participate in in the true
value of our own economy from an individual point of view. That is
extraordinarily powerful; that transforms the relationship that it has to
businesses, capital markets, free markets. But how does it then also change the
relationship between governments, policy makers, even regulators? My question
to all of you.

Pēteris Zilgalvis: I
mean, it can be a more direct relationship. Fully agreeing with the comments
that were just made. I mean, the first step is a little bit the efficiency play
where you have multiple actors who can’t share a database. Then it’s this possibility
to share value, transact value, manage data, utilizing tokenization, smart
contracts that can really have a much more interactive, a much more
participative economy and society. And that needs perhaps some regulatory
certainty from the policymakers’ side, which ideally would provide, but no more
than it needs to be provided. But I mean, it’s really a moment where we can
grasp these opportunities for innovation and most of all from the public
sector, public policy side, unleash the innovation – sustainable innovation,
also, in terms of energy use, which, you know, thankfully is becoming less and
less of a question for blockchain, but also sustainability in terms of fitting
the societal needs of protecting the investor, protecting the consumer and so on.

Angie Lau: I
mean, that’s something that drove the the FCC action in the early days with
ICOs. The market wanted it. It drove incredible investment, to huge criticisms
of blockchain industry as well. So how do you know? How do you think about that
relationship to not only the individual, but also to help foster the very
innovation that could potentially help everyone?

Valerie Szczepanik: Yeah,
I think, you know, we’re at an inflection point with this technology; we’re
also at a reflection point. I think this is a great opportunity for
technologists to get involved in the policy debates and in the regulatory
conversation with the regulators. I think this is the perfect opportunity to
come in because things are moving so fast, because regulators are a little bit,
a step behind the innovators because they’re trying to figure out what’s
happening and how the technology works. They’re not the innovators. They’re the
ones following, hopefully, in close step behind, but we need those innovators
to explain to us what the technology does, what it’s capable of, you talked
about unleashing the technology; I would use the word “harness,”
because I think we need to take a technology that’s potentially transformative,
disruptive too, and figure out how best to use it looking at the board here;
better policies for better lives. We want it to make better lives. We want it
to create efficiencies, create opportunities, but not create new problems. So I
think this is the perfect opportunity for technologists to get involved in the
debate. Talk amongst themselves, but also really engage with policymakers and
regulators to figure out where we should all go with this together.

Angie Lau: Bruno
Le Maire opened up OECD Forum here in Paris yesterday with some very stern
remarks about Facebook’s Libra project. Is this an example of inflexibility, of
regulatory guardrails or rules that inhibit innovation? This is a question for
really everyone on the stage.

Joseph Lubin: So
first, let’s talk about the Libra project itself. I was excited to hear about
the Libra project. I was excited because it was validation of what we’ve been
doing. It used the same words, it used the same phrases, lots of the same
constructs. And I think the greatest asset of the Libra project is its greatest
liability, essentially. And so I think the issue is about Facebook and not the
Libra project itself. We should see lots of Libra projects, Although I would
not want to see the Facebook nation consisting of 2.3 billion people. It’s
really the Caibra project that is dangerous, where Facebook, whose deep
learning systems understand us better than we understand ourselves… we
probably shouldn’t enable them to have a view of all of our monetary
transactions as well. So I don’t mind the project at all, except the Calibra
aspect of it, where Facebook builds a wallet. I do believe that there will be
many price stable currency projects, so Signature Bank and JP Morgan and a
whole bunch of others are building price stable tokens and they’re doing it in
not a fully open context right now, but there are some price stable tokens that
are in a much more open context, and we need systems like that. We need choice
and optionality in our monetary systems, in our payment systems. And frankly,
something like Libra would be great for certain nations that face volatility in
their currency, and the loss of monetary sovereignty is pretty scary. But lots
of countries would choose that, in order to have a more stable currency with
which they can operate their internal affairs, with which they can buy things
across borders much more easily. And if they do have optionality, if they can
choose a better system, then they’re not really necessarily locked in, so it
doesn’t mark controlling monetary policy for a whole bunch of smaller nations.
So I think that these systems are inevitable. I think the monetary regime that
we’re living under is end of life-ing. And we are going to need systems like
this that are essentially built at a layer above nation state bonds and nation
state currencies that will provide choice, and hopefully, better systems.

David Treat: Taking a slight step back from it and talking about the fundamental thing that’s underway, right, we should all be incredibly excited about that. We are finally seeing a technology space where we can fix what we’ve been living in, and just assumed has been the basis of the world, which is this separation of the cash leg of a business or any kind of transaction with the movement of something in the digital world. I think we’re going backwards. I think the digital world is here to stay. But we’ve been living this notion of the cash, the movement of value is something separate, and it’s disjointed, and it’s unnatural. Right? Coin of the realm is a real term. The digital realm is borderless. And we’ve got to come to that rationalization as to how does that work? And it’s too fundamentally valuable to be able to take the tokenized version of something and directly exchange it with tokenized value. We just completed, nine months ago, the first-ever central bank to central bank exchange of tokenized fiat currency with Canada and Singapore, on two different DLT systems, by the way. So the, you know, the monetary authority of Singapore on Quorum, the Bank of Canada on Corda, and exchange Canadian dollar for Sing dollar directly. There is the JPM coin, there’s now Libra. I think it’s not a matter of if this is the right thing to do. I think we desperately need to be able to link up, and it’s too valuable of an innovation to be able to directly exchange a digital thing with digital value atomically without that separate set of processes. And I think it’s a foot race, a really interesting foot race, in terms of, “is it central bank digital currency,” “is it private issue coin,” “what role does cryptocurrency play in it,” and, you know, there’s one answer that says it’s all of the above, and it’s going to be a different mix of how that’s accomplished. But amongst that debate and discussion of how it’s accomplished and who does it, I think the given is that it’s that capability of being able to exchange a digital asset with digital cash or value atomically (that) is critically valuable and is absolutely happening.

Joseph Lubin: Can
I just expand on this notion of natively digital? We’ve been quasi-digital in
some aspects of society for a very long time. We’ve had money represented in
digital form, but it’s really an analog monetary system. So the foundational
constructs of society are just now moving into natively digital form, whether
it’s cryptocurrency, or decentralized identity, or agreements, or securities;
all of these elements once rendered in natively digital form can be transacted
PVP, DVP, etc. And where we had transactions in the legacy economy, where
clearing and settlement took hours, days, weeks in some situations, those kinds
of frictions slow an economy. If we can move everything into a context where
you have atomic trustless swaps that clear and settle in the instance of the
transaction, you squeeze all the delays and all the frictions out of your
economy, you can build in a few seconds for regulatory oversight or whatever is
necessary into these transactions. But essentially, we’re in a global economy
that has so much more debt compared to the money in the system than we’ve ever
had before. And we need massive growth engine to get us out of this, and
squeezing all the frictions out of our global economy is potentially a good
one.

Angie Lau: Friction,
though, is something that can be self-imposed by governments and regulators.在
that spirit –

David Treat: It
can also be it can also be desperately needed. If you think about the liquidity
and capital markets, right? That was, the initial exuberance was where to
exchange all securities, you know, instantaneously. And of course, that would
be disastrous for liquidity, and you need market makers to be able to have a
settlement window to compress their trading activity, to provide that service:
to buy when no one wants to buy and sell and no one wants to sell. So there’s,
you know, and I’m not disagreeing with any of the points, I’m just saying this
is actually one of my favorite examples, where the initial exuberance of what
the technology can do was then universally applied inappropriately, but
actually is leading to a space of incredible creativity in that I think what
we’re going to move to quickly, and I’m sorry to go so specific on this, but
you triggered a talk track. One of the things I’m most excited about is then
the creativity in terms of, I think we will see in capital markets the notion
of, it’s not T plus 1, T plus 2 or the like, but now we have the capability to
risk price settlement windows. I can have as a part of trade entry, tray
capture, the notion of, “do I desire to clear instantly, and will I pay
differently because there’s a different risk exposure? Or am I willing to wait,
you know, hours?” I don’t think it’d be longer than hours, but am I
willing to wait for a longer settlement window to allow a market maker to do
what they do, and I can risk price the settlement window? This is incredibly
creative for the capital markets folks in the room. I think it’s where we’re
headed, and it’s these kinds of dialogues, and innovative discussions get
missed when we think just about the bilateral nature of some of this.

Angie Lau: The
next big thing, I heard it here. The next big thing from Turkey, from S.E.C.,
from EU.

Emin Torunoglu: Well,
I think the next big thing will be in using data to understand human behavior.
That’s what we are trying to do. And I think artificial intelligence and blockchain
could merge together.区块链 could execute some of the transactions, and by
artificial intelligence, we can decide which transactions to execute by
harnessing the data. But it’s a little bit down the road. Right now, we are
just trying to harness the benefit of the blockchain technology in foreign
trade. But the next big thing I think, the interoperability between the A.I.
and the blockchain technology.

Angie Lau: Thank
you.

Valerie Szczepanik: I
am seeing some exciting things in terms of capital formation, where bespoke
features are being programmed into smart contracts on issuance, so you have
financial instruments that really don’t look like things that we’ve seen
before, but they provide much more optionality for investors and for issuers
who want to raise capital. I think there is a huge opportunity in the coming
year for folks who want to really turn this technology toward compliance
systems. So with the FATF guidance and no doubt there, there’s amazing
opportunities for folks who want to work on the technology to build in AML, KYC
features that maybe we haven’t seen before, implementing certain of the rules,
the travel rules. So that’ll be exciting, to see how people can use that as a
business opportunity.

Pēteris Zilgalvis: So
making a tiny advertisement for the plenary at 15:30 on emerging tech, A.I.和
blockchain changing the world, I likewise see models like the data coming from
the Internet of Things being organized by blockchain, smart contracts being
rewarded or recognized by tokenization, analyzed by artificial intelligence,
and again, in a decentralized system, being sent to the appropriate or needed
destination. And I think this convergence of the technologies is exciting. And
again, we want to enable it and we want to enable it in Europe, but also in
collaboration with our international partners.

Angie Lau: And I
think it’s a great reminder that really, this conversation did not exist eleven
years ago. And in 2008, against the backdrop of the global financial crisis
came a technology that really captured the imagination of first, technologists
and then really now, the world.

Angie Lau: So I
thank you, all of you, for participating in your specific venue, your role as
we talk about innovation and use the words like interoperability, cross-border
collaboration, but it is this language of unified discussion that will
definitely be driving future collaborative conversations to come. Thank you to
all of you. Thank you to this audience for your attention, and to OECD.

The post WATCH: OECD: The Next Big Thing — Major Developments in DLT from Industry & Governments in the Year Ahead appeared first on Forkast.News.