Will the blockchain replace SWIFT?
No fringe concept, the question has long been openly asked by innovators in the blockchain industry as well as FinTech professionals due to the potential of the technology to replace financial intermediaries.
As the âglobal backbone of the financial industryâ, this is notably one of the core functions that SWIFT today serves.
Accordingly, the question of how SWIFT would respond to this potential threat gained new definition this week with the news that the financial messaging services provider is working to build its own distributed ledger platform. While itâs no secret that SWIFT had been exploring the tech, such conversations had previously been highlighted mostly as part of its events, research and its affiliation with the open-source, Linux Foundation-led, Hyperledger project.
Details as to what this could look like were scarce, but SWIFT did suggest its proofs-of-concept currently are exploring how it would integrate distributed ledgers in its SWIFTnet PKI security layer and assess interoperability with its existing electronic data standards, among other use cases.
Still, SWIFT ultimately made clear that it does not believe distributed ledgers are âmature enough to fulfill the requirements of the financial communityâ, statements that come even as a growing number of the 11,000 financial institutions it offers services explore this question.
Advances in using distributed ledgers for financial messaging are already gaining ground, with tech-friendly payments services providers, including CGI Group, Earthport and IntellectEU, all offering products based on Rippleâs technology.
Amidst this backdrop, the news seems to have sparked a diversity of reactions.
There were positive signs from existing partners that saw the move as a step in the right direction, while more progressive minds like Barclaysâ Simon Taylor called it a ââme tooâ moment two years lateâ.
Still, Spencer Bogart, equity research associate at Needham and Company, perhaps best summed up the overall sentiment, citing it as evidence of blockchainâs market momentum.
Bogart told CoinDesk:
âSWIFTâs announcement is superfluous evidence of what blockchain industry insiders have known for yearsÂÂ â that blockchain poses a real and existential threat to financial intermediaries.â
While Simon was arguably drastic in his statements, most respondents indicated that they believe SWIFTâs plans are perhaps best read as a sign it believes its role in the financial markets could be at risk.
Alex Tapscott, CEO of Northwest Passage Ventures, for example, argued that while it would be âoverly simplisticâ to say blockchain would replace SWIFT, the organization canât conduct tests on the âmargins of the systemâ given its potential.
â[SWIFT] should reinvent themselves completely with blockchain at the center of that strategy,â he advised.
Don Tapscott, author of the forthcoming book âBlockchain Revolutionâ, however, chose to see the event as a net-positive given the difficulties, he said, the financial industry has historically had embracing new technologies.
He said:
âSWIFT shows signs of avoiding the law of paradigm shifts: âLeaders of old paradigms have the greatest difficulty embracing the new.ââ
Still others were more critical of the report and what they asserted was the lack of specifics it provided to the market.
Respondents as diverse as Dave Birch, director of innovation at electronic transactions advisory firm Consult Hyperion, and Jim Harper, senior fellow at public policy research organization the Cato Institute, reported confusion about the language used and the ideas employed by the report.
âThe report talks about some proofs-of-concept in SWIFT Innovation Labs but does not describe what they are in enough detail for me to say anything sensible about them,â Birch told CoinDesk.
Specifically, he cited certain proposed positive attributes of distributed ledgers, including âtraceability of transactionsâ and âefficiency in broadcast informationâ, as areas where he believes the technology is weak today despite SWIFTâs claims otherwise.
Overall, Harper said he wasnât optimistic in his assessment of the report, dismissing SWIFT as âentertainingâ due to certain assertions about blockchain networks.
âI see distributed ledgers having little chance of moving forward under SWIFTâs auspices,â he told CoinDesk. âOne of the principle offerings of blockchains, and especially the bitcoin blockchain is trustlessness, and SWIFTâs value-add is the trust network it has built.â
Elsewhere, Spencer said the big question facing SWIFT was how its distributed ledger platform would evolve and how centralized it would be with the organization at the helm.
Thatâs not to say there wasnât praise for SWIFT and its report.
Of the respondents, those whose products and services currently work with the SWIFT network were the most positive about the announcement.
Hanna Zubko, VP of business development at IntellectEU, for example, stated that the middleware solutions firm has âalways advocatedâ that SWIFT should embrace distributed ledgers.
Zubko lauded SWIFT as a reliable and innovative partner and a welcome addition to the distributed ledger ecosystem.
âNothing will fundamentally change overnight, only careful first steps are taken, but in a very promising direction to say the least,â she said.
Likewise, Michael OâLaughlin, who leads blockchain development at CGI Group, said he saw the announcement as a validation of his firmâs work with distributed ledgers.
Still, Birch noted that those reading reactions should be careful in how they interpret the news, arguing that disruption is likely to happen differently than most believe.
As such, he asserted there would likely still be a need for the organization, even if distributed ledgers were broadly embraced.
Birch concluded:
âIâm sure a shared ledger implementation could replace the SWIFT system â itâs easy to imagine banks having SWIFT gateways but thereâs no SWIFT in the middle because every gateway contains the ledgers â but it wonât replace the SWIFT organization.â
Thrown tomato image via Shutterstock