As part of the recent Australian Blockchain Week, YBF Ventures hosted a showcase of Blockchain start-ups – not a standard pitch event, but more an opportunity to hear how some teams are deploying Blockchain technology in their projects.
Here are the projects in order of presentation (links in the project names):
ProvenDB – developing immutable and tamper-proof document management, built on Hedera Hashgraph
BuildSort – a construction contract management solution to improve the industry supply chain and project management
Laava ID – product authentication via “smart fingerprints”
Verida – decentralized identity (with a focus on health records) – a user-centric solution focused on building user trust – resulting in hyper-personalisation
Cryptocate – crypto tax management service – with the growth in DeFi, there is a lack of data standardization or formal tax guidance on taxable events – e.g., how to handle crypto options?
Elbaite – a non-custody exchange using a “TraderTrust” verification system to support P2P transactions – platform confirms the exchange transaction on-chain, then the platform uses the transaction hash to release clients’ fiat funds from escrow – platform charges fees and commission
Sempo – a remittance service, with a particular focus on supporting migrant workers, the unbanked and refugees
Future CX – decentralized middle-ware development – e.g., data containers, NFTs, smart contracts – using a “proof of distribution” model
Luca+ – e-invoicing solution that integrates with major third-party accounting software
BC Gateways– using Blockchain to facilitate secure data transfer within the superannuation industry – recently acquired by IRESS – scaling from 10k transactions per day to 5m per annum
DayByDay – an asset management solution for the insurance industry
Blockchain Australia, the national industry body, recently organised the first National Australian Blockchain Week – a mix of on-line and in-person events, hosted in Sydney and Melbourne. Overall, it was an impressive line up of speakers and topics, featuring key local figures and presenting some intriguing announcements from politicians, regulators and practitioners alike.
The recurring themes were: Regulation, Tax and Innovation.
Despite past pronouncements about adopting a light-touch regulatory regime when it comes to Blockchain technology, the absence of definite regulation risks stifling innovation and/or driving projects overseas to more receptive jurisdictions. (Irony of the week #1: contrast this with the early and positive regulatory engagement with Digital Currency Exchanges (DCE) and other market participants in Australia, not to mention previous progress in removing the absurd GST treatment on the purchase and sale of cryptocurrencies).
Now, the industry is (once again) asking policy makers: to clarify the law as it relates to decentralised protocols, digital assets and utility tokens; to streamline the confusing and over-complex tax system as it applies to DeFi: and to define a specific regulatory boundary (rather like the UK’s FCA perimeter) within which crypto assets need to be regulated. Sadly, the latter is extremely hard to acheive thanks to the very broad definition of “financial product” within the Australian Corporations Act.
Throughout the four days, there were several highlights: Senator Bragg’s keynote speech on driving the policy agenda to bring clarity to regulators and markets alike; a progress report on the National Blockchain Roadmap; tax and legal updates from Joni Pirovich and Michael Bacina; a showcase of local Blockchain start-up projects (more on that next week); and a couple of enterprise presentations on the ASX’s DLT replacement for CHESS and the Blockchain-based insurance project between the R3 consortium and Grow Super. But apart from a couple of other Blockchain-in-business sessions, there was a noticeable absence of corporates, major banks, traditional financial services and institutional investors.
There was a lot of commentary around the fact that many Blockchain businesses and crypto projects still find it challenging to access regular banking facilities in Australia (Irony of the week #2: Westpac’s windfall from the recent Coinbase IPO). There was also a lot of discussion about the need for investor education before crypto and digital assets can go “mainstream” – which I find surprising when plenty of people seem to be finding their way without any help from traditional financial advisors, and yet no-one is required to educate themselves before their money is put into compulsory superannuation or real estate assets. Even where crypto assets are being included in retail investor products, the allocation is very modest and is being transacted offshore (see Raiz’s 5% allocation via the US-based Gemini Trust). Why not use one of the several established and well-run exchanges, crypto funds and OTC providers here in Australia?
Regarding the potential offshore brain drain, much was made of the work that Singapore is doing to attract Blockchain and crypto businesses. But I think the focus on Singapore risks overstating the situation there, and overlooks what is actually happening (and could happen) in Australia. For example, while Singapore may have more favourable tax arrangements for new Blockchain projects, I understand that ordinary retail investors don’t have access to crypto funds (not even ETPs). The Singaporean issuance of digital assets via tokenisation has to be done via an SPV structure. And while many ICOs have been issued from Singapore, they could not be marketed to local investors. At least Australia has a robust DCE sector, e.g. Independent Reserve, BTC Markets, and Bit Trade (now part of Kraken); early on we saw some very successful retail products such as CoinJar; and the local industry continues to nurture innovative decentralisation projects – we just need to sort out those “policy settings”, and give more encouragement to local entrpreneuers and innovation. (Irony of the week #3 – when former ALP politician and self-styled crypto OG, Sam Dastyari, was asked if the private equity fund he works for was investing in Blockchain or crypto, there was a deafening silence…)
Finally, one of the main benefits of Blockchain Week has been to entice people out of hibernation, and to attend in-person events after months of lock-downs and restricted movement. It felt good to be back.
So instead, here is my personal quick take on recent developments in the local FinTech scene:
A tale of 2 neobanks
Maybe Australia isn’t ready for challenger banks, despite the early interest and apparent market demand. Xinja* has decided to give back its banking license, having spent a ton of money on obtaining it in the first place. It couldn’t sustain savings and deposit accounts (even in a low-interest rate environment) without sufficient regulatory capital, the funding for which has failed to materialise; and without deposits, Xinja couldn’t offer loans. There is talk of launching a US share-trading app instead (à la Robinhood) but given the recent shenanigans with Wall Street Bets, Reddit, hedge funds and GameStop day traders I don’t suppose the regulatory path to market will be that easy. Xinja looks like it’s done.
Meanwhile, NAB has just announced that it is acquiring the shares in 86 400 that it does not already own, in order to merge it with NAB’s digital brand, Ubank. Which further suggests neobanks can’t survive on their own in the Australian market, with the dominant and regulatory protected cartel of the Big 4. (My good friend Alan Tsen has described this latest transaction as a turducken….)
Other challenger brands in Australia are having to take different approaches: Up is piggybacking off Bendigo and Adelaide Bank’s ADI license; Volt describes itself as a BaaS provider (“banking as a service”); Judo is focused on business banking; and the UK’s Revolut is bringing a mix of credit cards, payment solutions and forex services (including crypto), rather than transaction banking. Meanwhile, another BaaS from the UK, Railsbank is currently recruiting locally for a GM to leads its Australian roll-out.
Finally, despite some concerns about the BNPL sector (“buy now, pay later”), Afterpay is partnering with Westpac‘s BaaS platform to offer banking services to its customers.
Whither the Big 4?
Speaking of which, what are the Big 4 doing in the broader sphere of FinTech?
Despite (or because of?) buying a neobank, NAB has apparently closed down the Labs part of NAB Ventures, the often-mentioned, but largely silent startup incubator. CBA has created X15, a similar FinTech ventures platform with the ambitious goal of launching 25 businesses in 5 years (I seem to recall NAB Ventures once had a similar mandate?). Westpac‘s own FinTech fund, Reinventure is expected to do well out of the forthcoming Coinbase IPO; so much so that Reinventure is planning to decouple from Westpac, and launch a new fund focused on DeFi opportunities. ANZ has been putting out some commentary on its ANZi platform for FinTech innovation and partnerships – but its remit is limited to trade finance, home ownership and open data, and it is being very coy as to what specific bets they are making. Ho hum.
Did somebody mention crypto?
In case you hadn’t realised, we are experiencing something of a bull market in crypto.
Coinspot just announced they have 1,000,000 customers. Raiz Invest has launched its retail savings portfolio product with a 5% allocation to Bitcoin. Other funds like Every Capital are planning similar retail offerings. Luno is advertising on Melbourne’s tram shelters. And the Australian division of eToro is talking up DeFi. Game on!
Next week: Transition – post-pandemic career moves
* Declaration of interest – the author participated in the Xinja equity crowd-sale a few years ago
Last week I was privileged to be a guest on This Is Imminent, a new form of Web TV hosted by Simon Waller. The given topic was Blockchain and the Limitations of Trust.
As regular readers will know, I have been immersed in the world of Blockchain, cryptocurrency and digital assets for over four years – and while I am not a technologist, I think know enough to understand some of the potential impact and implications of Blockchain on distributed networks, decentralization, governance, disintermediation, digital disruption, programmable money, tokenization, and for the purposes of last week’s discussion, human trust.
The point of the discussion was to explore how Blockchain might provide a solution to the absence of trust we currently experience in many areas of our daily lives. Even better, how Blockchain could enhance or expand our existing trusted relationships, especially across remote networks. The complete event can be viewed here, but be warned that it’s not a technical discussion (and wasn’t intended to be), although Simon did find a very amusing video that tries to explain Blockchain with the aid of Spam (the luncheon meat, not the unwanted e-mail).
At a time when our trust in public institutions is being tested all the time, it’s more important than ever to understand the nature of trust (especially trust placed in any new technology), and to navigate how we establish, build and maintain trust in increasingly peer-to-peer, fractured, fragmented, open and remote networks.
To frame the conversation, I think it’s important to lay down a few guiding principles.
First, a network is only as strong as its weakest point of connection.
Second, there are three main components to maintaining the integrity of a “trusted” network:
how are network participants verified?
how secure is the network against malicious actors?
what are the penalties or sanctions for breaking that trust?
Third,“trust” in the context of networks is a proxy for “risk” – how much or how far are we willing to trust a network, and everyone connected to it?
For example, if you and I know each other personally and I trust you as a friend, colleague or acquaintance, does that mean I should automatically trust everyone else you know? (Probably not.) Equally, should I trust you just because you know all the same people as me? (Again, probably not.) Each relationship (or connection) in that type of network has to be evaluated on its own merits. Although we can do a certain amount of due diligence and triangulation, as each network becomes larger, it’s increasingly difficult for us to “know” each and every connection.
Let’s suppose that the verification process is set appropriately high, that the network is maintained securely, and that there are adequate sanctions for abusing the network trust – then it is possible for each connection to “know” each other, because the network has created the minimum degree of trust for the network to be viable. Consequently, we might conclude that only trustworthy people would want to join a network based on trust where each transaction is observable and traceable (albeit in the case of Blockchain, pseudonymously).
When it comes to trust and risk assessment, it still amazes me the amount of personal (and private) information people are willing to share on social media platforms, just to get a “free” account. We seem to be very comfortable placing an inordinate amount of trust in these highly centralized services both to protect our data and to manage our relationships – which to me is something of an unfair bargain.
Statistically we know we are more likely to be killed in a car accident than in a plane crash – but we attach far more risk to flying than to driving. Whenever we take our vehicle out on to the road, we automatically assume that every other driver is licensed, insured, and competent to drive, and that their car is taxed and roadworthy. We cannot verify this information ourselves, so we have to trust in both the centralized systems (that regulate drivers, cars and roads), and in each and every individual driver – but we know there are so many weak points in that structure.
Blockchain has the ability to verify each and every participant and transaction on the network, enabling all users to trust in the security and reliability of network transactions. In addition, once verified, participants do not have to keep providing verification each time they want to access the network, because the network “knows” enough about each participant that it can create a mutual level of trust without everyone having to have direct knowledge of each other.
In the asymmetric relationships we have created with centralized platforms such as social media, we find ourselves in a very binary situation – once we have provided our e-mail address, date of birth, gender and whatever else is required, we cannot be confident that the platform “forgets” that information when it no longer needs it. It’s a case of “all or nothing” as the price of network entry. Whereas, if we operated under a system of self-sovereign digital identity (which technology like Blockchain can facilitate), then I can be sure that such platforms only have access to the specific personal data points that I am willing to share with them, for the specific purpose I determine, and only for as long as I decide.
Finally, taking control of, and being responsible for managing our own personal information (such as a private key for a digital wallet) is perhaps a step too far for some people. They might not feel they have enough confidence in their own ability to be trusted with this data, so they would rather delegate this responsibility to centralized systems.