The Merge: blockchain perde sua reputação tóxica (Gilbert Verdian)

Muitas empresas que se beneficiariam com o blockchain têm evitado isso. Sua pegada de carbono, despesas e links para criptomoedas voláteis contribuíram para que o blockchain abrigasse uma reputação tóxica que não poderia ser abalada e que as empresas não tocariam.

That was until ‘the Merge’. This – now widely used – term references the restructure of the world’s largest programmable blockchain: Ethereum. Put simply, this September the cryptography driving the system has been switched from proof of work (PoW) to proof of stake (PoS). This essentially replaced the huge, energy-intensive computers that were the network’s core validators, with individuals and companies. It is expected to reduce the energy consumption of Ethereum by 99% and reduce the global use of energy by 0.02%, de acordo com Vitalik Buterin, melhorando significativamente a sua sustentabilidade. O Surge, o epílogo da fusão, acabará por aumentar a capacidade e reduzir as taxas na rede.

É claramente um passo significativo para trazer o Ethereum para o mainstream e marca uma evolução da tecnologia blockchain. Mas o que significa a melhoria da reputação do blockchain clientes significa para uso institucional?

Press coverage has focused on more widespread crypto usage; however, the real impact will be on the institutional side – particularly within financial services. Now the stage is set for innovations, it is likely that parts of the industry may turn towards decentralised infrastructure. Blockchain can offer safe and secure transaction processing at a fraction of the cost, particularly when compared to the enormous expense and burden of today’s systems.

This has never been more relevant. The digital asset market is maturing significantly just as its traditional counterpart enters a period of turmoil and uncertainty. As the world hurtles towards another recession, businesses will be examining how to save money and cut costs.  A greener, more cost-efficient blockchain could form part of the answer and reduce the institution’s huge IT expenditures.

If implemented correctly, blockchain could save billions in infrastructure and associated IT costs. Rather than paying for service level agreements, data centres, cloud hosting and other services, financial institutions can and will leverage blockchain infrastructure at a fraction of the cost of running the same transactions in-house. Cost efficiencies aside, tokenisation could improve several areas within asset management specifically, such as issuance, exchange and servicing as well as simplify processes involving a host of intermediaries. Potential benefits include improved access to, and personalisation of, investment solutions.

Para o capital privado, a blockchain poderia permitir a propriedade fracionada e fundos descentralizados, o que não só aumentará a transparência, mas criará mais flexibilidade em torno da liquidez para o que anteriormente só poderiam ser investimentos bloqueados de longo prazo.

However, there is still a missing piece of the puzzle to be considered: interoperability. For true mainstream adoption of blockchain to occur within businesses, users need to be able to transact across multiple networks. Currently, it is not particularly easy to share information from one blockchain to another. To put this into context, if interoperability within email communication had never been achieved, Outlook users wouldn’t be able to send messages to Gmail accounts and vice versa.

Mesmo que a adoção generalizada tenha ocorrido como resultado da fusão, até que diferentes blockchains – incluindo Ethereum – possam comunicar entre si de forma eficaz, todos os benefícios da tecnologia para as empresas não serão desbloqueados.