Pervasive banking

In computer science, there is a concept of "pervasive computing" - an idea that instead of using a specific device to perform computation, it would instead be distributed "everywhere" and we would instead just use our devices as interfaces to access this ubiquitous computing environment. So instead of having say, a laptop or a PC where we run our programs, we could have a local cloud of computing devices to provide us with their resources at our disposal. Just as computing appears to be moving to this model with say, home game streaming, perhaps it's time for the banking services to take a clue as well?

What would constitute a pervasive banking experience?

1. The ability for anyone to access the banking network
2. The ability to cash in and cash out at any location, not just the banks and ATMs
3. The freedom to pay conveniently in any fashion

Number 1 we've discussed before. It would be really good if banks were considered to be a common carrier, and thus unable to refuse the service to anyone that pays the fees and follows the rules.

Number 2 is interesting. There are a few examples of some convenient cash in / out cropping up here and there. I've seen a few banks offering cash out services during checkouts at stores, Apple Pay looks like it will be offering P2P payments to allow people to pay for other people's purchases and what not, and Abra is looking into offering P2P remittance services.

Perhaps in the future we will see more companies embracing the "anywhere-in, anywhere-out" nature of banking and we might see say, self-checkout kiosks or even vending machines acting as our convenient ATMs? After all, if they can already accept deposits, make change and accept credit cards, they have all the functionality needed.

Number 3 appears to be also already in the works. We've got Google Wallet allowing you to pay wirelessly (although at the time, only in US, which still appears to be too focused on magswipes...), or a poorly named "Coin" card that replaces your multiple card with a single programmable card (unfortunately, with the outdated magswipes...). We also have some people developing Bitcoin applications that use MasterCard's PayPass technology.

Perhaps this step will become easier once everyone is talking on a common standard. Luckily, we have a W3C Web Payment Interest Group hoping to create a standard protocol for payments (list of participants includes Ripple Labs, although I don't see any other cryptocurrency expert representing). It is possible that with the standard being established it would be easier for companies to build gateways in and out of the old banking systems and allow for everyone to be able to pay in a way that is the most convenient for them - cash, credit, mobile or crypto.

Conclusions

All in all, it seems that we are heading towards the pervasive banking / Singularity of Money concept on a few fronts, although it might still be years before the idea is fully realized.


Relevant links:

• The Singularity of Money
• The rise of fiat-denominated cryptos

A legitimate reason for premining tokens

In the Bitcoin world, the term "premining" is a dirty word and for a good reason. There have been numerous preminted altcoins out there created with the sole purpose of being pumped and then dumped. Some other premined coins gain slightly more credibility by premining their tokens in order to create fiat-denominated cryptos. Then again, we had some big scams in that realm as well.

Over the last few years we also had a few token presales for various app-coins (Augur, MaidSafe, etc.) and platform tokens (Ethereum, Mastercoin, etc.). While the tokens have mostly been advertised as being sold to give you access to the platform / application (possibly to avoid securities regulations), it is clear that a lot of people purchase those tokens in hopes of speculating on their future price.

And lastly, we have the case of Ripple, a Crypto 2.0 platform that was completely premined and whose parent company still owns a vast majority of the XRP tokens. Some have been sold, some have been given away, but the fact still remains - Ripple Labs owns most of those tokens. Some maintain that it can be a long-term business strategy for the company - to hold onto the XRPs for a long time while building up the network to earn money from the appreciated value of the tokens. While this might be a useful stream of revenue, I think there might be a better use for such tokens for both Ripple and similar systems that might come along.

As we have seen recently, a lot of big institutions are waking up to the idea of "a blockchain" and its usefulness for accountability and so on. Ripple is among one of such blockchains pushing for being adopted by big companies like banks or Western Union.

However, from what I heard chatting with some people in the industry talking to such institutions, the hard sell in a lot of cases is the token / coin. Perhaps this is why we see banks not wanting to adopt Bitcoin but being enamoured with a more bland and generic "blockchain" - you need bitcoins to use Bitcoin, and the price of bitcoins fluctuates wildly. The institutions don't want to get exposed to the price swings, so they opt away from such platform. However, what if we could remove that uncertainty altogether? Well, in some cases we might just be able to...

Imagine we have a company that wants to get onto a blockchain and is weighing its options. One of their concerns would be whether a system they build today will hold up in a few years time, both in therms of technical capabilities (will the system be able to expand to meet the growing needs of the network, or will we have another block size debate) and pricing (will the costs stay the same or go up). While the earlier is always up in the air since you can't predict everything, the latter might have a more concrete solution.

If we took a company like Ripple Labs with their big supply of XRPs, they could possibly offer a good solution to the pricing problem for an important enough customer. All they would simply need to do is offer that company a long-term option to buy the tokens at some fixed price. This way, the company could be certain they won't pay more than X to use the system in the future, no matter where the price of XRPs might go in the future. Whatever Ripple Labs might be losing by entering the option contract and possibly selling a fair amount of tokens at a low price years down the line, it could make up in other areas - either integration fees or the rest of their XRPs appreciating in value due to the high profile of customer they brought on.

So all in all, while there are many reasons why premining is a bad practice and should generally be avoided, there are a few reasons why it might be useful for the growth of the system.

Shipping without incentives and features

Recently I was doing some research into Factom, a new project that aims to embed a lot of data into the Bitcoin blockchain and create a "proof of existence as a service", among other things. I stumbled upon some criticisms of the software (Google Cache link, as the original was taken down). One of the crucial features missing from the Factom code at the current time appears to be the lack of incentive for nodes to store any data after it is embedded into the Bitcoin blockchain. Pondering this for awhile, a few similar issues with other systems came to mind, and thus I'm writing this blog entry on various Bitcoin-related software that launched without some important features or incentives.

"Convenient bugs and arbitrary features" is also a recommended reading related to this topic.

Red balloons - Bitcoin is not without its flaws

When I was doing research for my master thesis on Bitcoin, some researchers from Microsoft and Cornell University released a paper called On Bitcoin and Red Balloons, where they pointed out the Bitcoin nodes have no incentive to propagate transaction information through the network, and miners have all the incentive to actively withhold that information.

The gist of the research is that while anyone creating a transaction has the incentive to propagate it through the network (they want the transaction to be put in a block, so they spread it to everyone), miners have the incentive to include paid transactions into blocks (to earn fees), Bitcoin nodes have no incentive to relay the transaction information. They are not getting paid to do so, nor do they benefit from the transactions they transmit directly. Moreover, if a miner knows of a transaction with a fee, they benefit from not broadcasting it - this way it is less likely to be mined by their competitors and they are more likely to earn that particular transaction fee.

One can argue, however, that every business built on top of Bitcoin has the incentive to run a full node that relays all the information. While they don't benefit directly, the abundance of full nodes makes the network more resilient to attacks and more distributed. What benefits the community at large is also beneficial to the individuals in some way.

Mastercoin - a token without a purpose

Back in the day when Mastercoin launched (and has since re-branded into Omni), my biggest question surrounding this technology was - "what are mastercoins used for?". In the Bitcoin space, you would use bitcoins to pay the transaction fees. In the Mastercoin space, well, there wasn't a clear use for mastercoins. Sure, the project itself benefited from the crowdsale to fund the development of the protocol, and some people earned some pretty penny speculating on the price of the coins, but there was no immediate use for the tokens themselves. There were no mastercoin-denominated fees in the system, the transactions instead paid the standard Bitcoin transaction fees. Only much later did the developers include a clear use case for the tokens - to burn them for crowdsales. A little bit of an arbitrary feature in my opinion, but at least it is some feature.

Ripple validators - a big burden with no reward

In a similar vein to Bitcoin's lack of incentives for running full nodes, the Ripple network provides no incentive for network validators. A validator is similar to a miner on the Bitcoin network - they process all the transactions taking place on the network and create new ledgers. While mining bitcoins is a computationally-intensive task due to proof of work, the Ripple network is more heavy on the disk space (full network history taking up 100-500GB of data at the moment).

Unlike Bitcoin however, Ripple fees are not paid to the miners / validators, they are instead burned. Similarly, Ripple has no coin distribution schedule - all the XRPs have been created in the genesis ledger. This leaves validators with no incentive for a potentially burdensome effort (most of them are currently run by Ripple Labs last I heard).

There are two approaches to solving this issue however. One is the idea that the Ripple gateways should also run validators, as they are the ones earning the most money from the network operating. The second approach could build on top of Stellar's token creation - the validators can be compensated by the users of the networks for their contributions with newly minted stellars.

Factom - pay to save, never load

As mentioned in the opening paragraph, it appears that the Factom network allows its users to save any pieces of information into the network for a fee, but fetching the data in the future carries no cost and thus no reward for the nodes to carry out that request. If someone decided to abuse the network, they could try flooding it with a lot of requests similar to a denial of service attack - honest nodes would be overburdened with having to provide a lot of data, while lazy nodes that wouldn't even attempt to provide the information would be better off.

As such, it appears that the Factom network will need to expand its fee and reward structure to provide incentives for nodes to store information as long as it is useful, similar to how MaidSafe is supposed to work.

Branded coins - start with a purpose

I heard a few similar pitches - a company wants to release a new, branded coin and tie it to their service. They usually have some grand vision of how everyone will want to use their coin since they will be able to spend it in their system and pay anyone just as easily as they do with Bitcoin. Sometimes it's customer rewards for shopping, sometimes it's some coin to raise brand awareness. However, quite often such pitches lack one crucial thing - why would anyone want to use the branded coin over Bitcoin? If you say, have a payment processor that accepts Bitcoin and their branded coin, I personally see no reason to use the branded coin over Bitcoin, nor to hold it any longer than it takes to convert it back into BTC. Even the usefulness of presale tokens can sometimes be dubious.

In the end, a branded coin needs to serve some purpose other than just existing for the sake of it.

Conclusions

There have been a lot of projects in the past that have launched without all the necessary features or without proper incentives to support all of the functionality. While we can expect some level of altruistic behaviour from the people running the software, a well-run system shouldn't rely on altruism alone - either you pay to use the resource, or you lose it.