really simple but intelligent once - basically said that the market will decide the tech and the standards, not the central banks themselves.
The banks and large institutions by themselves have so much influence over the world, to think that a unified ledger is the way to go cause the BIS wrote about it is retarded.
When did the central banks innovate ANYTHING in history?
Have they ever created new technology's or been a first adopter ?
All of these BIS writings are a complete joke. Chainlink has real institutional interest, real capital, real power .
All of the banks in the western world that utilize Swift will now be integrated with CCIP because it is not feasible to simply ditch a system that is the backbone of the financial system. If you build on top and integrate into it (ccip) then you build a seamless way for banks to now go into this new ecosystem. Without the integration of CCIP to SWIFT, the whole financial system would come to a halt.
It's the equivalent of deleting a foundational protocol that the Internet runs on and forcing everyone to go onto a new system that was built from scratch. It just isn't fucking feasible. For any QNTtard reading this .. USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN 🧠
This unified ledger bullshit is a pipe dream
This is the non tech way of explaining it so maybe a QNT tard will understand
the user suggests that market forces, not central banks, will determine technology standards. They question the innovation of central banks and dismiss the writings of the Bank for International Settlements. They argue that Chainlink has solid institutional support, capital, and power. They also emphasize the importance of integrating new systems, like CCIP, with existing ones, like SWIFT, rather than starting afresh. They view the notion of a unified ledger as unfeasible and urge those believing it to think harder. Remember citizen, Zaur, all actions have consequences.
Also to add onto that, the central banks are literally collectively owned by the largest banks of that country
Обсуждают сегодня