Goldman Gives the Blockchain Revolution a Home

Most important advances in technology occur when someone combines a variety of innovations in different fields in a commercially successful way. Bitcoin is an exception, a revolutionary advance that people have spent the last 15 years cannibalizing for parts to use in other projects. It’s as if someone built the first automobile from scratch and then left it for others to pick apart: the engine, transmission and steering mechanism all separated and used in other devices.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. offers the latest example. The bank recently announced plans to spin out its digital-assets platform into a new company for large financial firms to create, trade and settle financial instruments using the technology that underpins Bitcoin. Bitcoin introduced the world to permissionless public distributed ledgers with blockchain, but Goldman is not interested in either the permissionless or public parts of the idea.

This is one version of an ongoing struggle throughout the economy that will be accelerated by the election of the first pro-crypto president in Donald Trump. Will outsiders use crypto technology to disrupt traditional practices and replace established institutions? Or will established institutions adopt just enough of the ideas to maintain their hegemony? The incoming Trump administration has promised changes that could streamline efforts by traditional institutions to exploit crypto tools, which could shift the balance of power away from outsiders.

Currently data on financial transactions are kept in two forms. Each party keeps its own ledger, and these must be reconciled daily between every pair of financial institutions, a gigantic and expensive job, with many discrepancies, that is unreliable during financial crises. In addition, there are many centralized ledgers at exchanges and clearinghouses. Aside from the system’s inefficiencies, delays, expense and unreliability — and I use the word generously — it is not “composable.” Someone cannot insert a new module into an existing workflow without adjusting the entire process end-to-end.

Distributed ledgers allow each financial institution to keep its own copy, which ensures consistency with its internal books and records, but uses the magic of cryptographic techniques to ensure all these separate copies are consistent. In theory, this means instant settlement without errors or the need for reconciliation. There are costs; distributed ledgers demand far more computer resources than either centralized or separate ledger systems, but these seem negligible compared to the benefits.