A wake-up call to blockchain fiscal opportunists:
^
The principles on which the financial systems are built require financial infrastructure institutions to support — NOT disrupt or supplant, but “ support the stability of the broader financial system , other relevant public interest considerations, and the objectives of relevant stakeholders.” (Principle 2, PFMI, 2012). That’s literally, “support the system on the system’s terms!”
…
Do YOU think the alphabet soup of IFIs above thinks of you as a “relevant stakeholder” — ? Do you think YOUR interests align with how the “relevant stakeholders” view “relevant public interest considerations” — ?
^
I don’t see the argument here. Any professional who thinks “blockchain” is inseparable from currency should seriously re-evaluate their career. It’d be like saying the TCP protocol == FMI because credit card data is transmitted using it.
1 Like
FMI is a very specific designation carrying with it a set of strictures narrowly accountable to financial scenarios and interests, which would shackle blockchain technology to that sector. The liability for infrastructure must be taken by those offering services over a given blockchain, not unlike the arguments against ISPs being liable for user actions (which in the case of social media should not apply IMO since social media companies directly profit by both user action and their own influence upon the users’ experience). The point the article is making is that blockchains need to be accountable to users and service reliability generally, not finance specifically. Those gunning for FMI designation are actually aiming for something more brittle and less versatile, and appealing to authority which is hostile to even their own opportunistic, greedy interests as blockchain prospectors.