Blockchain for trade finance: A network business
| 19-06-2018 | Carlo de Meijer | TreasuryXL

Trade finance has become one of the top focus issues for blockchain technology use. The number of pilots and other trials that are looking into the opportunities of blockchain technology for trade finance and supply chain have dramatically increased in 2017 and intensified this year. The sheer complexity of trade finance is thereby reflected in the variety of potential solutions. Different parts of the ‘trade finance supply chain’ had their own blockchain initiative. A large number of these pilots however stopped or failed being too narrow in their set-up. These were mainly focused on certain – and limited – aspects of the trade finance chain.
The various parties who are involved in the trade finance and supply chain business however are increasingly becoming aware that stand-alone solutions are not the answer to the various challenges in the trade finance industry. The success of using blockchain in trade finance purposes stands or falls with networks effects and if it is adopted widely. They are increasingly convinced that as well as developing a platform and blockchain solution, a network must be in place that covers all the parties in the trade finance chain so that the full transaction can be completed on the blockchain.
As a result we have seen the upcoming of blockchain trade finance networks with exotic names like Batavia, Marco Polo, We.Trade and more are expected to follow. In this blog I want to go somewhat deeper in these various offerings.
Trade finance: a complex process
Trade finance is a complex process. Various parties from exporters, importers, banks, truckers, shippers, custom agents and regulators all require checks and verifications at various points along the chain. Each interlocking part of the chain depends on successful completion of the previous phase and on reliable information.
Banks thereby play a large role in the trade finance chain, notably in the supply of letters of credit and other financing mechanism. Letters of credit are the most widely used way of financing between importers and exporters, helping guarantee trade transactions. At the moment buyers and suppliers use a letter of credit typically concluded by physically transferring paper documents to underpin transactions. This process however creates a long paper trail and it may take between five and ten days to exchange documentation.
A network business
Trade finance is a network business. It is an activity that often involves multiple counterparties in various and far-away parts of the world. Creating a blockchain trade finance ecosystem that combines all the different stages of trade from production to end-delivery is a must. For blockchain trade finance platforms to work in an optimal way this means on-boarding other banks, regulators, customs and all parts of the trade cycle. This asks for the setting up of blockchain-enabled trade finance platforms or networks with common standards enabling interoperability.
“Of course we are closely monitoring initiatives among all the other consortia that we know about developing trade finance on blockchain and we are mindful of ensuring inter-operability where we can”. Hubert Benoot, Head of Trade KBC and chairman of We.Trade
Read the full article of our expert Carlo de Meijer on LinkedIn

Economist and researcher

Last year I wrote a blog on the Hyperledger project and what that could mean for blockchain acceptance (see my blog: Hyperledger Project: collaboration pays off, 9 April 2017). We are now almost a year later and I am wondering if they are meeting my expectations. “2017 was a milestone year for Hyperledger both for new members and for new technical breakthroughs. In 2017 we doubled our membership, gaining companies like American Express, Cisco, Daimler and Baidu, and we’re expecting more companies and organizations to join in 2018.” Brian Behlendorf, Executive Director, Hyperledger.
Blockchain technology enables real-time settlement finality in the securities world. This may mean the end of a number of players in the post trade area. For a long time, central securities depositories (CSDs), as intermediators in the post-trade processing chain, were expected to become obsolete. CSDs, but also other existing players in the post-trade environment, are however changing their mind on these new technologies and on their future position in the blockchain world. Increasing regulation, legacy systems and costs pressures, are drivers for CSDs to at least embrace some aspects of blockchain. They are increasingly considering them as enabler of more efficient processing of existing and new services, instead of a threat to their existence. It is interesting to see that some of these actors – who could be potentially big losers in a distributed ledger technology (DLT) or blockchain system – are open to innovation with blockchain and willing to invest in DLT. Last January SWIFT and seven CSDs worldwide agreed on a Memorandum of Understanding to explore the use of blockchain technology in the post trade process esp. e-proxy voting.
Almost a year ago I wrote my blog “Blockchain and the Ripple effect: did it Ripple?”. Now twelve months later we may conclude it did. And even more than that. Ripple is making many waves. A lot happened both in broadening their offerings and in enlarging their network. A growing number of banks and payment providers, increasingly join RippleNet, Ripple’s decentralized global network, to “process cross-border payments efficiently in real time with end-to-end tracking and certainty”. By using the growing set of Ripple solutions they are able to expand payments offerings into new markets that are otherwise too difficult or too expensive to reach. The focus of Ripple therefor has especially moved towards emerging markets.
Long-time regulators world-wide took a wait-and-see attitude towards the non-regulated markets for Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. But that is changing rapidly. With the growing popularity of the crypto market, the large number of unregulated cryptocurrencies (more than 1300, greater attention is now being paid by Governments and other stakeholders around the world.
There are various signals that a number of corporates are moving their blockchain projects towards production. We recently have seen the announcement of the IBM – Maersk project, to create a blockchain based corporate. If accepted in a sufficient way by the various players in the shipping industry supply chain that could mean a real breakthrough for blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies. “The big thing that is missing from this industry to digitize and unleash the potential of the technology is really to create a form of utility that brings standards across the entire ecosystem,” Maersk’s Chief Commercial Officer Vincent Clerc.
Payments is increasingly seen as an area that is ripe for disruption, having the potential to enhance payment processing. To overcome the current structural weaknesses in the payments area including low speed, high expenses, financial institutions are increasingly adopting the idea of blockchain or distributed ledger technology (DLT). This in order to offer (near) instant cross-border payments at lower costs, higher security and more reliability. Up till recently most of these trials have been non-interoperable stand-alone solutions. But that may change!
During our stay in South Africa I was reading an article in Die Burger (newspaper for Afrikaners) where a spokesman of Cape town-based PWC gave his ideas on the recent rise of Bitcoin and the future of Blokketting (Afrikaans for Blockchain). This inspired me to write this blog. Since I started writing about blockchain I categorically refused to use the term Bitcoin. But this time it is different. As Bitcoin nears the end of a record-breaking year, it seems an appropriate time to dive into this – by many traditional players said – over-hyped thing. Others describe this fascination for Bitcoins as a “speculative mania”. The broader public has discovered this phenomenon. I will not say it is (already) the end of the rise in Bitcoins or other crypto currencies. But let me be clear: Bitcoin is a lot not!
In May this year, fintech start-up R3 raised $107 million from a consortium of the world’s top banks. The New York-based blockchain company that works in collaboration with more than 90 banks and other financial organizations world-wide, plans to use the money to invest in further developing the Corda platform (see my blog: Corda: distributed ledger ….. not blockchain! April 6, 2016) as well as “encouraging entrepreneurs to start building on the platform though training videos and hackathons”.
My last blog was about IBM, triggered by a Juniper Research putting the company as the number one in the blockchain technology competition. One of the comments on this blog was that it looked like an IBM press release. But that is far beyond what is meant. I just looked at what the tech company was doing in the blockchain arena and why it could be adopted as the main blockchain model when blockchain adoption could become mainstream. In a previous blog I already talked about Microsoft’s CoCo platform, the number two in the Juniper Research asking myself if that could become a game changer (see my Blog: Microsoft CoCo Framework: blockchain game changer, August 29, 2017). Today I will go into some more detail in the blockchain activities of Accenture, number three according to the Juniper survey.