|
|
|
|
|
by thebean11
1520 days ago
|
|
For sure, something like a stock still has a real-life counterparty that you can't get rid of. Trading it on a blockchain eliminates only the counterparty risk from the person you trade with, not with the party issuing the token / asset. This is true for basically everything except the native token. |
|
I think we agree here. The question then is: how useful is this really?
For example, assume I have some USD that I want to trade for VT, and I want to decide between using a blockchain or not.
The counterparty risk solved by using a blockchain is:
1. No blockchain: the broker (who's between me and the person I want to trade with) can technically keep the USD and the VT.
2. Blockchain: this cannot happen because a smart contract prevents it.
But:
a. How often are you in a situation where you trust the entities backing the two assets (USD and VT here) but can't find a broker whose trustworthiness is implied by the trustworthiness of the two entities backing the two other assets?
b. Less trust is always better, but blockchain-based solutions bring their own problems (e.g. private key custody). Are there even cases in which this trade-off is worth it?