Centralisation is much simpler than decentralisation. Decentralisation therefore only has value if it’s able to overcome problems posed by centralisation, e.g. censorship of finicial transactions. Therefore, blockchain’s only viable app is avoiding / defending oneself from government / banking controls. Every other use case is better suited to traditional centralised architectures.
> McKinsey’s work with financial services leaders over the past two years suggests those at the blockchain “coalface” have begun to have doubts. In fact, as other industries have geared up, the mood music at some levels in financial services has been increasingly of caution
Who writes this stuff? I assumed with McKinsey you'd at least get exceptionally clear and concise communication and analysis.
Granted all the assumptions are likely to be made up and the conclusions nonsense, but still.
They need to make money still. So the pitch now seems to be: hire us to clarify the confusion for you. The pitch was previously: hire us to ensure you don’t get disintermediated. I see this article as capitulation. And about time.
You are generous; I always thought McKinsey's stock in trade was making things more complicated and confusing than they actually are. I've never seen a counterexample, though I suppose one may exist.
7 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 18.5 ms ] threadWho writes this stuff? I assumed with McKinsey you'd at least get exceptionally clear and concise communication and analysis.
Granted all the assumptions are likely to be made up and the conclusions nonsense, but still.