[nightski]

I'd rather argue they are there for "domain" reasons. For one, banks often re-order transactions. I know my bank will process deposits first, then debits for the day. This way you are less likely to incur overdraft fees. It's also to fight fraudulent transactions. Although with the move to "real time" debit processing (which is actually two batch jobs a day) they are placing limits on the types of transactions that can be processed.

A domain that can't handle any delay in consistency is atypical in my experience. Either way you can do DDD/CQRS without eventual consistency.

[he0001]

They are there because they are used to think that way. It's conways law written all over it... There's no actual reason for them to do it. They replaced their paperwork with a system that does the same thing. Fraudulent transactions can you find without the need of summarizing it.

Yes you can do DDD/CQRS without ES but CQRS is not needed, it's just a technical construct not solving any verifiable problem. DDD on the other hand is more sane and to some extend, verifiable.

[jorgeleo]

Agree, the initial question was on eventual consistency, not on DDD.

[gregyoung1]

You will also note that they process debits in descending order to maximize possible overdraft fees at most banks ;-)