World Economic Forum Paves Way for Global Crypto-Asset Regulation

The World Economic Forum (WEF) recently published a white paper titled “Pathways to the Regulation of Crypto-Assets: A Global Approach,” advocating for a collaborative approach towards crypto regulation on a global scale.

The white paper highlights the unique challenges and necessary considerations regarding the regulation of crypto-assets. Considering the borderless, open-source, decentralized nature of these digital currencies, their regulation requires a delicate balance between preventing harm, protecting users, and promoting innovation.

The WEF acknowledges significant progress made so far, especially through the involvement of numerous international organizations like FSB, IMF, BIS, OECD, IOSCO, and national regulators such as the EU, Singapore, Japan, the UAE, India, South Africa, the US, among others. However, many pertinent questions remain under discussion, including how to define and classify crypto-assets, adapting to a rapidly evolving ecosystem, and maintaining effective regulatory oversight.

The white paper outlines several challenges in implementing a global regulatory approach, including lack of harmonized classifications, regulatory arbitrage, and fragmented monitoring. The WEF suggests these hurdles can be overcome through collaboration among policymakers, regulators, and industry.

The report analyses the wide spectrum of regulatory approaches adopted by different jurisdictions such as principle-based, risk-based, agile regulation, self and co-regulation, and regulation by enforcement. A broad and global view of the topic was ensured by consulting diverse stakeholders of the Digital Currency Governance Consortium (DCGC) while evolving recommendations.

The white paper concludes that a global approach to regulating crypto-assets is ideal, urging international organizations, national/regional authorities, and industry stakeholders to consider its findings in developing a coordinated approach to crypto-asset regulation. It also emphasizes the need for academia, civil society, and users’ involvement in evolving a responsible ecosystem.

In conclusion, the WEF white paper outlines an urgent need for stakeholders worldwide to collaborate in formulating comprehensive crypto-asset regulations. As the crypto-asset ecosystem continues to evolve, this paper will serve as an important guidepost for shaping the future of digital currency governance.

To delve deeper into blockchain and crypto, please read our exclusive interview with Nadia Hewett, the blockchain project lead of the World Economic Forum, whose insights on these matters offer invaluable context and clarity on the path forward in this complex, rapidly-evolving sector.


Tagged : / / / /

Blockchain Fights Climate Change

According to a recent white paper published by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the use of blockchain technology has quickly become one of the most important weapons in the battle against climate change. The report explains how blockchain technology may offer the essential infrastructure to combat climate change “at speed and scale” by increasing market transparency, building trust and ambition within climate discussions, democratizing access to climate action, and funneling more funding to project developers. Brynly Llyr, who is in charge of blockchain and digital assets at the Crypto Impact and Sustainability Accelerator (CISA) of the World Economic Forum, emphasized how important it is to investigate new technologies in order to combat climate change. She said that “global climate infrastructure, tools, and coordination technologies can all help us keep pace with our changing planetary ecosystem.” In situations like these, technology like blockchain and shared infrastructure may be of great assistance.

In its white paper, the World Economic Forum (WEF) emphasized the need of supportive legislation in order to foster digital climate innovation. According to Dana Gibber, CEO of the blockchain climate project Flowcarbon, industry experts have come to the conclusion that governments should take into consideration the different uses of blockchain technology that go beyond cryptocurrencies. Gibber stressed the significance of policymakers understanding the potential of blockchain technology by adding that “this goes beyond cryptocurrencies and encompasses what you can build on blockchain.” In doing so, Gibber drew attention to the fact that it is important for politicians to recognize the potential of blockchain technology.

In the meanwhile, the prominent cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase is also lobbying for further regulatory clarity in the digital asset industry in the United States. On April 25, Coinbase initiated legal action in an effort to push the Securities and Exchange Commission to take action on its rulemaking petition, which has been outstanding since July of last year. The court action was launched in an effort to force the SEC to act. Additionally, the exchange has initiated a campaign for nonfungible tokens that advocates for crypto regulations that are more rational.

The promise of blockchain technology to tackle climate change is gaining greater recognition among business leaders; nevertheless, this potential cannot be realized without supportive and constructive regulation from politicians. As the world continues to struggle with the critical problem of climate change, the use of blockchain technology is expected to become an increasingly important part of the initiatives under way to build a more sustainable future.


Tagged : / / / / /

Shiba Inu developer says WEF will influence metaverse policy

One of the volunteers who is helping out with the Shiba Inu project is both the project manager and the principal developer for the project. His name is Shytoshi Kusama. This person has stated on social media that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is interested in partnering with the meme-based cryptocurrency on subjects relevant to global policy, and they have expressed their desire in doing so. Additionally, this person has stated that the World Economic Forum (WEF) has expressed their desire to do so. This individual has also mentioned that the World Economic Forum (WEF) has voiced their intention to do so, which is an additional point of interest.

Kusama said in a vote that took place on November 22 that the World Economic Forum (WEF) had “kindly invited” the Shiba Inu initiative to participate on “MV global policy.” Twitter was used to spread the word about the vote.

At the time that choice was made, it seemed as if the individual who was responsible for creating Shiba Inus was alluding to a regulation that is applicable in the metaverse.

Although there have been times when cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology have been discussed at WEF events, it would appear that a partnership with a meme token that is substantially used is a first for the organization. This is because the WEF has not previously been involved with such a partnership. Meme tokens are digital assets that are used to represent memes. Memes may be represented by meme tokens.

At the time of publication, more than sixty-five percent of the approximately nine thousand people who participated in Kusama’s survey had cast their vote in favor of Shiba Inus collaborating with the WEF. On the other hand, approximately ten percent of those polled stated that it didn’t make a difference either way. This is where Kusama’s survey may be located.

On Twitter, Yayoi Kusama is followed by more than 861,000 people at the present time.

The price of SHIB has dropped by about 80 percent during the course of the previous year, as shown by data that was made public by Cointelegraph Markets Pro. This information was made accessible by Cointelegraph Markets Pro. At the time that this article was published, the price of one SHIB token was $0.0000088, which is a significant reduction from its prior value.

Prior to the publication of this article, Blockchain.News made many attempts to get in contact with the WEF; but, the organization did not respond to any of our inquiries. Blockchain.News is publishing this article nevertheless.


Tagged : / /

WEF Launches Coalition to Deal with Climate Change through Web3.0

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has established a Crypto Sustainability Coalition to investigate the capability of Web3 in tackling climate change.

In a statement, the WEF noted that blockchain tools would propel transparency in the worldwide carbon credits market, whereas crypto mining would trigger renewable microgrids through off-peak demand and decentralization.

Since the adoption of technologies like non-fungible tokens (NFTs), blockchains, and cryptocurrencies in Web 3.0, members of the coalition will find out how they can boost social and environmental agendas.

The coalition also seeks regulatory clarity that enhances Web3 innovation, propels financial inclusion, and protects consumers.

Brynly Llyr, World Economic Forum’s head of blockchain and digital assets, noted:

“I am excited about the work we are expecting from the Crypto Sustainability Coalition. An important and unique aspect of web3 is that it uses technology to support and reward direct community engagement and action.”

Llyr added:

“This means we can coordinate the work of many individuals directly with one another, enabling collective action without centralized control – a powerful accelerator for grass roots action.”

The Crypto Sustainability Coalition consist of 30 partners hosted by the WEF as a public-private initiative. Its primary areas of concern include Web3’s potential for climate action, energy usage, and “on-chain” carbon credits. 

Some partners include Solana, Circle, NEAR Foundation, PlanetWatch, University of Lisbon, eToro, Crypto Council for Innovation, and Sustainable Bitcoin Standard. 

Moreover, the coalition will come up with best practices and tangible action on how Web3 technologies can positively impact communities most affected by climate change. The report noted:

“The coalition’s wider aim is to foster a broad education campaign on what Web3’s potential and capacity look like, to better inform governments on how they regulate these technologies and incentivize investment and research into their development.”

Meanwhile, a report by Chainlink Labs and Tecnalia noted that blockchain technology could help fight the climate crisis through smart contracts, Blockchain.News reported. 

Image source: Shutterstock


Tagged : / / / / / / / /

Why Does Academia Have A Bias Against Bitcoin?

Academia is no fan of Bitcoin. The vast majority of professors are hugely biased against it. For example, Professor of Economics Nouriel Roubini of New York University doesn’t even try to hide his intense hatred for Bitcoin. Roubini told Bloomberg that “the Flintstones had a better monetary system than bitcoin” and has repeatedly called it a “bubble” since 2015. When asked to give expert testimony to the U.S. Senate, Roubini called Bitcoin “the mother of all scams” and smeared all its supporters as “scammers, swindlers, criminals, charlatans, insider whales and carnival barkers.”

Roubini is far from unique among academics in his disdain for Bitcoin. Prominent academic economists are nearly universal in their dismissal of Bitcoin. Few professors have deeply studied Bitcoin and even fewer really understand it; yet, many professors have ruled Bitcoin out.

I recently had the immense honor and pleasure of presenting to the HxEconomics Community, a group facilitated by Heterodox Academy, an organization of university professors, students and staff “committed to enhancing the quality of research and education by promoting open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in institutions of higher learning.” As a testament to living their values, the economics discussion group graciously invited me, a nonacademic without any special credentials to present, to a panel titled, “Overlooked Orthodoxy, Academia’s Bias Against Bitcoin.” In the fruitful informal discussion that followed, the small group of professors and students agreed my thesis was likely true: There is an inherent bias in academia and the economic body of research/theories it produces in favor of supporting a “fiat” or managed monetary system and against Bitcoin specifically.

Why Bitcoin specifically? Bitcoin is a set of rules without rulers, it’s just a protocol. Bitcoin is unique among cryptocurrencies in that it’s laser-focused on being unstoppable (through decentralization and game theory) and consistent (in supply schedule, economic and consensus rules, uptime, and treatment of participants). Bitcoin knows no favorites; it treats teens from Nigeria the same as powerful members of the Federal Reserve. Bitcoin is by far the least stoppable and most consistent money that can be used online due to its decentralization, network effects, developmental stage, ethos and lack of leadership.

Bitcoiners love this lack of control over Bitcoin because it keeps the system from being fixed in favor of the already rich and powerful. Within fiat, on the other hand, there is a well-observed phenomenon of those with control over the money supply disproportionately allocating new money to those they favor (the elite): It’s known as the Cantillon effect and exacerbates inequality. However, most of academia views the fiat system of centralized control over money to be legitimate, good and necessary. Academics tend to disagree with the view of many Bitcoiners that economist Friedrich von Hayek expressed in his 1974 acceptance speech for the Nobel prize:

“To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.”

Academics often disregard Hayek’s concerns and pin their hopes on monetary authorities to make interventions for the greater good. Academics usually prefer a managed economy, believing the fiat system with its central authorities will lessen recessions and depressions. Managed money gives governments and their advisors and unelected monetary managers the ability to respond to changes in the world with changes to the money supply, interest rate, and so on. In fact, Roubini complains of too little central control in fiat due to the use of cash and desires for yet more power to authorities over people’s money, “If you phase out cash … then the negative interest rate in a severe recession or depression can go to -1, -2, -3, -4, -5(%) whatever you want it to be … that’s the direction we’re going to go.”

Thus, academia fails to grasp the main value proposition of Bitcoin: its lack of central management, lack of control by any party. Bitcoin takes away the ability of central planners to set the rules of a market, allocate money as they see fit in an economy, confiscate wealth from citizens, and prevent the transfer of funds (or financially censor anyone).

Why do academics want so much power in the hands of central planners given their vulnerability to corruption, misunderstandings and power consolidation? Why don’t academics often discuss inherent fiat system risks such as totalitarianism through money control and kleptocratic or unfair actions by those managing money?

Because academics are the planners! Academics benefit hugely from centralized fiat money systems through employment opportunities as decision-makers, advisors or researchers for said system. Decentralized Bitcoin is a unique threat to the centralized control over the fiat monetary system by unelected officials. “Expert” unelected officials exert control over our global monetary system through various mechanisms such as the allocation of enormous newly printed sums of wealth to favored nations, programs and enterprises, as well as altering interest rates. Unelected central planners also choose who may or may not access markets to acquire resources for themselves and their families through organizations like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), giving or withholding loans and aid, and more.

There is a revolving door between academics and positions of power as central economic planners at institutions like the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic Forum (WEF) and the World Bank. For example, Roubini has worked for decades in academia but currently also advises the IMF, Bretton Woods Committee and more and has previously held positions at the Federal Reserve, World Bank and advising the U.S. government. Central planning of the financial system means more power for Roubini, his colleagues and the many organizations that pay and empower them. Pictured below are just a few of the staggering number of academics who have attained positions of significant power, prestige and financial reward as unelected managers or advisors of the fiat money system.

A. Janet Yellen spent decades in academia and became Federal Reserve chair and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. B. Stefanie Kelton is a current professor at Stony Brook University whose work in Modern Monetary Theory heavily influences Democrats like Bernie Sanders. C. Gita Gopinath took leave of public service from Harvard University to be the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. She also works for the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Federal Reserve. D. The founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab had a long and distinctive academic career. E. Jim Yong Kim is the former president of Dartmouth College who went on to be the president of the World Bank.

A. Janet Yellen spent decades in academia and became Federal Reserve chair and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. B. Stefanie Kelton is a current professor at Stony Brook University whose work in Modern Monetary Theory heavily influences Democrats like Bernie Sanders. C. Gita Gopinath took leave of public service from Harvard University to be the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. She also works for the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Federal Reserve. D. The founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab had a long and distinctive academic career. E. Jim Yong Kim is the former president of Dartmouth College who went on to be the president of the World Bank.

There is an unacknowledged conflict of interest in academia: Since academics are the central planners, they are incentivized to come to research conclusions that advocate heavy central planning. As trusted experts, academic economists are the managers of the global fiat system and thus often blind to the drawbacks and risks associated with trusting our monetary system to fallible central managers at all.

Even professors who are not involved or looking to be involved in managing or advising the fiat monetary system have pressure to support it. Fiat monetary organizations empower their colleagues (and thus universities generally) and frequently provide research funding to economics departments. There is enormous pressure within academia to conform in supporting the fiat system. Professor Ashley Hodgson, who leads regular discussion groups with academic economists across the country through Heterodox Academy, explains:

“In any large organization where the relationships within the organization are social, there is a political element. You have to be sensitive to what offends your colleagues, what offends your superiors. There is a social and professional benefit to staying on everybody’s good side. In academia especially the currency we trade in is prestige rather than money… People take a pay cut relative to what they could get outside of academia in order to climb this ladder of prestige and intellectualism … Academics have to be sensitive to the fact that their credibility could be questioned if they say things that offend people in influential circles … In academia, people’s ideas are what they take pride in: that is their identity. So criticizing their ideas has a higher chance of causing genuine offense in the academic setting. That means if you want to climb up in the hierarchy of academia you need to be careful about criticizing ideas, especially ideas of people who are at the top of their fields, who make decisions…”

Thus, academic economists are hesitant to criticize the fiat system, since their most esteemed colleagues are its central planners. Bitcoin takes away academic economists’ ability to influence the monetary system, greatly reducing their relevance, prestige, power and thus funding.

Moreover, universities benefit from the fiat system’s easy money policies through government grants and tuition money (taking out debt favored in inflationary environments like the fiat system). The economists and papers academia produces are thus biased in support of inflationary fiat systems. It’s no wonder why so many academics vociferously oppose Bitcoin and advocate central planners having control over the global monetary system. Note: I am by no means calling economic professors evil. All humans have a tendency to be biased toward their incentives. If universities only had Bitcoiners not employed in the fiat system as professors, they would also be biased. But that is far from the case, instead they have nearly no Bitcoin supporters among them.

There is an unacknowledged conflict of interest in academia: Since academics are the central planners they are incentivized to come to research conclusions that advocate heavy central planning. Academia today is inherently and highly biased against Bitcoin. It is high time we recognize said bias and take steps to correct it.

This is a guest post by Hannah Wolfman-Jones. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.


Tagged : / / / / / / / / / /

Bitcoin Is Freedom From Institutional Plans To Control The World

To paraphrase “The Communist Manifesto,” it seems to many that all the ruling powers of the state — also known simply as “the elite” — have entered into some unholy alliance to exorcise the still-remaining spectre of independence and human freedoms, which they seem to believe haunts the modern world. These “powers” would include the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Scientific Academia Network, all central bankers, the European Union, the City of London Corporation, the United Nations, the Kremlin, the Chinese Communist Party, the United States of America’s presumed “deep state,” Wall Street, mass media, the Islamic Jihaddist Emirates across the Middle East, the Socialist International, the Sao Paulo Forum in Latin America and the Jewish nationalist movement, Zionism.

All of these globalist powers are waging their own wars to see who will become the “one party to rule them all,” or to reach a one-world government agreement. By their increasingly-oppressive policies, all of them seem to have declared war on a common enemy: the individuals living within their boundaries, the so-called “citizens.” You may notice that all nations are also currently at war with one another economically. They are all attempting to starve each other through trade restrictions, and this occasionally erupts into violent warfare. This is a consequence of governments controlling the money supply. And money is, indeed, the core element of all human interactions.

Computer technology is on the verge of providing the ability for individuals and groups to communicate and interact with each other in a totally anonymous manner. Two persons may exchange messages, conduct business, and negotiate electronic contracts without ever knowing the true name or legal identity of the other. Interactions over networks will be untraceable, via extensive re-routing of encrypted packets and tamper-proof boxes which implement cryptographic protocols, with nearly perfect assurance against any tampering. Reputations will be of central importance, far more important in dealings than even the credit ratings of today. These developments will alter completely the nature of government regulation, the ability to tax and control economic interactions, the ability to keep information secret, and will even alter the nature of trust and reputation.

Privacy is necessary for an open society in the information age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn’t want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn’t want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.

If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each party can speak about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One could pass laws against it, but freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is fundamental to an open society; we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to.

The technology for this revolution — and it surely will be both a social and economic revolution — has existed in theory for the past decade. The methods are based upon public-key encryption, zero-knowledge interactive proof systems, and various software protocols for interaction, authentication, and verification.

“The state” will of course try to slow or halt the spread of this technology, citing national security concerns, use of the technology by drug dealers and tax evaders, and fears of societal disintegration. Many of these concerns will be valid; crypto-anarchy will indeed allow national secrets to be traded freely and will allow illicit and stolen materials to likewise be traded. An anonymous computerized market will even make possible abhorrent markets for assassinations and extortion. Various criminal and foreign elements will be active users of CryptoNet. But this will not halt the spread of freedom, as ”the state” tries to strip individuals of their properties.

To a human, any violation of property, starting with a human’s own body and extending to the goods he has produced with his labor, is an injustice. Therefore, no property equals no freedom in the social and political realms.Humans, like other social mammals, appear to have an entire circuit within their nervous system that detects and responds powerfully to injustice.

And this violation of individuals’ properties is called slavery. And the state is “the slavery corporation” par excellence; the subtle parasitic caste thanks to the monopoly of violence.

Monopolies can’t exist unless they are supported by governments that protect them from competition. Monopolies in security and defense services have the same type of effects as other monopolies — poor quality products with high prices.

Governments particularly enjoy monopolies on security services because it prevents citizens from being protected from the government. One of the most effective ways that corrupt governments steal from their people is through printing money after they establish a monopoly on money.

A side effect of money printing is the boom-and-bust cycle that results in massive bad investment and great destruction of human efforts. Government intervention into the economy has greatly held back humanity from solving problems in the same way that it hindered citizens in Soviet Russia under communism. Thus, the removal of government intervention into the economy will result in rapid advancements in technology and quality of life.

Keep this in mind: money does not need to be provided by governments. Rather, it is another example of a solution discovered by the interactions of free people (the market) that was monopolized by the government. Money is used as a medium of exchange, a store of value and a unit of account. These are specific attributes of what we mean by the word “money.”

Money is a useful tool that facilitates better decision making and enables fruitful trades that would not otherwise take place. A barter economy is an underdeveloped economy. Bitcoin is the only money that is government resistant and this is the critical feature that makes it a good choice for preserving wealth.

The state has created the legal tender (fiat) system, which is the most subtle and sophisticated form of slavery mankind has developed to date. In this scheme, the predator forces the victims to use his “money” for transactions.

Moreover, the money is an asset that can be easily produced by the predator. For example, paper and insecure electronic money are common choices. The deception varies, but it generally applies the justifications of monopoly slavery to the production of money. The attacker also claims that using violence to prevent the use of other money is not a crime.

Bitcoin will break the legal tender monopolies because it is not bulky to transport in large amounts. As a result, it is not dependent upon approval from the predator, through border checks or the banking monopoly, for transfer to and between victims.

The first effect of this will be to reduce the amount of legal tender kept in victims’ savings. Bitcoin, by providing a store of value that is difficult to steal and has no storage costs, provides a better alternative. And since it is likely to become money in the future, victims will be rewarded with significant gains for investing in bitcoin. This reduces the predator’s ability to steal from victims by printing more money as the overall market value of the predator’s money is reduced.

Secondly, bitcoin will compete with the predator’s money as a medium of exchange. Once a large quantity of victims become investors, it will be natural for them to use bitcoin itself for any immediate exchanges. However, at this stage, and for exchanges that involve contracts and debt, the debtor will still choose to pay in the less valuable legal tender.

Finally, bitcoin will enable private security that will not recognize the predator’s money as a required, or even legitimate, means of paying debts. If a contract specifies payment in bitcoin, any security provider, other than the predator, would recognize the contract as written.

Remember: money must be one thing, and one thing only. If a society uses many monies it has begun to revert to a barter economy and money does not exist. Currently monies end at national borders, but this is also a result of government intervention.

Bitcoiners disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the will of humans acting over all existing economical barriers. Let the ruling classes tremble at a financial evolution. We are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money.

Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don’t much care if you don’t approve of the software we write. We know that software can’t be destroyed and that a widely-dispersed system can’t be shut down. The individuals have a world to win.

Bitcoin nodes of the world, decentralize! You have nothing to lose but your fiat chains!

This is a guest post by Koty Auditore. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.


Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / /

Blockchain a panacea for corruption in state governance, says exec

Transparency, fairness and efficiency of government systems are some of the areas that are prime for blockchain disruption in public governance.

Writing for the WEF Global Agenda section, Matthew Van Niekerk, co-founder and CEO of blockchain-as-a-service outfit SettleMint, highlighted how blockchain adoption could improve public procurement and land registries.

According to Van Niekerk, public procurement is one of the main avenues of corruption and wastage in government. As part of the report, the SettleMint CEO argued that the closed-off nature of the process encourages illicit interaction between public officials and private businesses.

Van Niekerk surmised that blockchain adoption could facilitate a more open system of public procurement. According to the article, this larger pool of participants will draw from beyond government parastatals and private firms to include a “wider coalition of stakeholders,” such as standards organizations, consumer protection watchdogs, and the media, among others.

For Van Niekerk, blockchain adoption will leverage decentralized ledger technology to offer “easily accessible, tamper-proof and real-time window into on-going procurement processes.”

Back in October 2018, a World Bank Group report touted blockchain as a viable tool for defragmenting government procurement protocols across the globe.

Related: Australian senate committee calls for national blockchain land registry

On land registries, Van Niekerk pointed to blockchain as a possible solution to problems surrounding inefficiencies in registration titling systems.

According to Van Niekerk’s article, a blockchain-based registry system will help to eliminate land transaction bottlenecks, thus removing the need for bribes and other less-than-legal activities required to speed up the process.

Land registries are indeed one of the more ubiquitous adoption cases for blockchain technology across the globe. From Sweden to Australia and even countries in Africa, state governments are pursuing distributed ledger technology adoption for land registries.