We are pleased to introduce to you E-Ordering Solution. A business solution designed to automate the processes of goods requisition and ordering both within an organization and from an organization to an external destination.

We at 3Consulting understand the challenges posed by the traditional paper-based requisition system including the downtime it creates for workers within an organization, not taking for granted this loss wastage that it causes to many organization, we took a step back to observe and to research the various problems it creates and one by one address, proffering solutions to each.

A result of the effort we made in resolving and simplifying issues arising from all sort of requisitioning within and from an organization is what we came to call E-Ordering Solution.

We understand the power of bi-directional communication and therefore keep long-term relationship with our clients, building high-quality solutions that are designed suite the needs of our customers.

We also have a responsive customer service, accurate project management team, high product quality standard and an ethical approach to business, making sure that our work is performed on budget and on deadline.

We appreciate feedback from our customers and promise prompt response to their requests.

Technology is Disrupting Everything

It is interesting how the changes facing us as individuals, organizations, society and how we do business is being driven by technology; and that the speed of change is so rapid that it seems even the experts have a hard time grappling with it.

Digital disruption is changing every aspect of the system from the organizational level to where and how we work to the laws and systems we have in place, most of which are entirely inappropriate in an ‘on-demand’ world.

‘On-demand’ for those of you not up on the current lingo refers to services like Uber, Postmates or Airbnb. Each provides a digital platform to give instant access to a taxi, delivery or room rental. In the case of Uber and Postmates, it hires people to provide the service (with their own vehicles). With Airbnb, it is a direct transaction between the owner and the renter using the owner’s home.

Disrupting business

Businesses deal with disruption in a variety of ways, but those affected by on-demand seem to realize now that these new digital platforms are an actual threat. In January San Francisco’s biggest taxi company filed for bankruptcy. Bear in mind this is a protected municipal monopoly that up until several years ago faced no competition whatsoever. The heady world of digital delivery changed all that as ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft have taken a serious bite out of long-established businesses.

In the days before digital disruption, you stood on the corner and hailed a taxi or booked a hotel room. You might have called your favorite restaurant for delivery and it might have offered such a service or not.

The intersection of cloud and mobile changed everything. With a computer in our pockets, the introduction of app stores and access to cheap cloud services, clever people came up with these platforms (and many others like them) and it has fundamentally changed businesses and created whole new ways of working.

All of that is having a profound impact on us as we struggle to keep up with the changes they bring. For the taxi and hotel businesses, what started as an irritant is becoming a full-fledged threat to their business models.

Disrupting us

There is something else happening here. Even as organizations are being disrupted, so are we and what’s changing is the way we work (and expect to work).

There have been a range of responses from individuals to digitization of certain industries — and if it hasn’t happened to yours yet, expect it to soon. Taxi drivers have felt the change most directly from ride sharing. They have reacted with strikes and sometimes with violence, illustrating that it’s not just the industry itself feeling the full weight of disruption, but also the individuals who work in it in a very direct way.

Yet even as taxi drivers feel the sting of competition, many others are joining the ranks of Uber drivers. Why do they do it? In most cases people like the model. Some do it to supplement a full-time job, while the majority earn their living from Uber.

These folks have the advantage of working on the digital platform that Uber created for them. They have flexibility to work as much or as little as they want. They simply turn on the app when they want to work and they start picking people up. If they don’t want to work, they turn it off.

It’s great to work when you want, but it’s not so great when you don’t get paid because you got the flu or hurt your back.

It’s worth noting that while Uber is a highly successful example of this work model, it is hardly the only digital platform operating this way.

Disrupting Institutions

Meanwhile governments struggle to keep up. Sometimes they want to protect the incumbent industries. Sometimes they want to encourage innovation. Whatever they do, they tend to react much, much too slowly to technological changes. As technology speeds along, we are stuck with antiquated systems that fail to meet the needs of today’s businesses or the way we work.

Just as technology and the digital platforms that we are creating are changing these industries and the way individuals work, it’s also have a huge impact on the systems we have put in place that have been tied to a traditional way of working.

We see this playing out in a number of ways. Employees lack any benefits in this new system, prompting speakers to suggest that perhaps we require a benefits package that isn’t tied to our employer. Emergency systems like unemployment insurance spend too much time and money trying to find cheaters instead of helping people achieve their goals and find meaningful work.

If technology is driving all this change, perhaps we can find answers in building digital platforms that address these issues and give people a central place to deal with them in a modern context. While there are many benefits in using these services, there are many implications too and we need to come to grips with the changes digitization brings because it’s having an impact on every aspect of our lives.

What’s the Future of Mobile Payments

You’re in the department store. Your basket is nearly full. There’s just one last pair of pants to look at. And what’s that? A coupon for the pants you’re considering buying pops up on your phone.


The pants are coming with you. And it’s time to go. You wave your phone at the checkout to pay for your purchase and you’re out the door.

That was easy!

And the kicker, you’ve earned loyalty points for everything you’ve bought. You head home,mission accomplished.

This is the future of shopping as Mobile Payments go mainstream. With the launch of Apple Pay, NFC (Near Field Communication) is quickly becoming the Mobile Payments platform of choice. Brands, retailers, cell phone providers, technology companies and payment providers are lining up around the block to get on board.

The advent and eventual adoption of micro-geographical tracking and geo-fencing, technologies has allowed retailers to serve discounts to your phone at the point of sale, owning the where will become the norm for marketers. Imagine Tinder for coupons. You’ll open an app and browse offers based on your micro-location. It’s a win-win for retailers and consumers – highly targeted marketing to a captive audience as far as retailers are concerned, and offers that you can use right here, right now.

This, of course, is great for retailers. They can track shopper movements and marketing ROI in more granular ways than ever before. And it should be great for consumers. The “personal and exclusive” discount is just the sort of nudge that will help consumers to continue to adopt Mobile Payments. Incentivizing to change payment behavior is, after all, tried and tested. Credit cards have been keeping our business for years with the offer of airline miles. Technology enables consumer benefits and consumers enable the technology. Everyone wins.

But here’s where things get sticky. Just like any other new technology, Mobile Payments are only going to really pay off if consumers think it’s better than their established behaviors and experience.

The value proposition of using coupons and paying with your phone will have to beat searching in your wallet for cards and coupons. And Mobile Payments will need to have an engaging seamless experience at the point of sale, as not everyone is in a hurry to get rid of their wallets or purses. Consider women, who typically do the bulk of the shopping. Most women’s wallets sit happily in the handbags that they carry everywhere.

Ultimately, whether or not Mobile Payments keep consumers happy will hinge on whether the big players are able to play nicely with each other. If they do, Mobile Payments will be a boost for both retailers and consumers.

On the other hand, Mobile Payments could become a messy land-grab, with retailers favoring brand-exclusive Mobile Payment systems, cell phone providers offering their own platforms and payments and technology companies competing for a slice of the mobile wallet. All of which, will make life much more complicated for consumers and hinder the experience and ultimately the value proposition of Mobile Payments.

Imagine yourself again at the department store checkout.

You’re precariously balancing your basket.

You’re minding your toddler who is eyeing up the candy.

And you have to swipe through nine different brand apps to find the right one for this store.

This could be the future of Mobile Payments.

Is it really better than a good old-fashioned wallet or purse?

: Improving What is Measured

In the transition to <IR>, a number of organizations found that much of what they had previously measured was not directly related to value creation. Organizations also found that reporting on an integrated view of value creation involves measuring and disclosing new information.

Some organizations realized that, for some types of capital, they did not have any performance indicators. For others, including human capital, they realized that the performance indicators they had been using did not tie to value creation. Working with the six capitals,(Financial, Manufactured, Intellectual, Human, Social and Relationship, and Natural), in the Framework led some companies to track and disclose more information about innovation.

The innovation is incremental, not disruptive, but constant technological innovation is necessary to reduce costs and increase value added by any organization. This was something some companies did not previously discuss with stakeholders or publicly disclose.

Organizations admit that <IR> does not always perfectly align with internal management systems, even when management systems are integrated. Organizations are using the integrated report as an opportunity to articulate their strategy and business model both internally and externally. While this is the least challenging aspect of connectivity, more than 50% of organizations that have issued an integrated report still find connecting internal and external reporting to be a moderate or significant challenge.

Many organizations note that they report information that stakeholders – including investors – request, but not all of this information is seen as meaningful internally. Other organizations make a point of only reporting information that is used to manage the business. Data quality is seen as a particular priority if information is to be used for internal decision making. Executives and boards want to have confidence in the data they rely on.

Some companies, in their effort to make their reporting more relevant and strategic, they are beginning to push back on requests for information deemed immaterial. This involves an education process, helping investors and other stakeholders understand why a company measure and manage what it does.

How Policies and Big Data Improve Credit Scoring for Customers

Credit Scoring In China

During one particularly interesting panel, the moderator asked American and Chinese CEOs the same questions to reveal how two companies — with similar business models, operating in the same industry — can have very different approaches to product development, business development, and marketing. Differences between US and Chinese approaches to credit scoring drive a large part of this gap. Here are three points that stood out.

Penetration of traditional credit scores: Statistics that compared FICO’s 70% coverage for credit customers in the US with an estimated 30% coverage across many smaller players in China suggest that the number of consumers in China without credit scores dwarfs the corresponding population in US. They also suggest that there’s a huge opportunity for Chinese companies to develop alternative scoring models without competing against a dominant incumbent.

Point of access: Online shopping platforms use their expansive consumer spending data to participate actively in the credit scoring process, often with support from the government. Chinese e-commerce players are expanding into related financial services with not only a unique data set of consumer behavior, but also direct access to consumers through mobile apps. With an ecosystem of customer information captured on mobile phones, consumers can obtain loans for purchases directly through e-commerce mobile applications.

Regulation: US lenders face heightened scrutiny to prevent potential discrimination during the lending process, specifically regarding characteristics such as race, religion, gender, and age. Some proposed regulations notwithstanding; no such restrictions exist in China, where lenders and credit providers regularly use all available data as inputs into their models.

fintech stats


Source: Morgan Stanley, bloombergview.com

P2P Lending Regulation In China

Let’s delve deeper into regulation. Traditional financial institutions are heavily regulated in China, but the P2P lending space has operated with effectively no formal regulation for nearly a decade.

In December the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) — China’s financial services regulatory body — released the first draft rules regulating the country’s P2P lending industry. In addition to introducing new transparency and registration requirements for the nation’s ~3,600 active P2P lenders, the proposed rules state that P2P lending platforms can only be intermediaries linking borrowers and investors. Platforms can’t guarantee returns, take deposits, or pool investors’ money. Additionally, they can’t offer wealth management and insurance products — denying P2P platforms an opportunity to diversify their revenue streams. This could spell trouble for many of China’s larger P2P lending platforms which currently offer wealth management products.

“Unbundling” Banks In The US

Another key point was the unbundling of banks in the US. FinTech companies are disintermediating major banks on all fronts — payments, personal financial management, and lending.

FinTech startups are focused on specific verticals, which allow them to build deeper, more comprehensive, and more tailored product suites. This gives the disruptors a distinct advantage over banks, as the latter tend to be hamstrung by competing product initiatives and internal prioritization battles.

Consumer behaviors are also changing. Smartphones are on the rise, and so is mobile banking —nearly 75% of American adults bank on their phones. And banks find it increasingly difficult to retain their young clients. 18% of millennials switched banks in the past year alone.

How should banks respond?

Partnerships: Banks have realized that they can’t ignore FinTech anymore, and they’ve started to partner with startups.  Fintech companies are using non-traditional data sources to help banks underwrite more effectively. And banks continue to partner with payments companies — the top five issuing banks all partnered with Apple to enable their credit cards on the Apple Pay app.

Competition: Banks haven’t indiscriminately adopted partnerships with the disruptors. Some have also tried to compete. A lot of mobile wallet apps continue to spring up. And at one point, J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo blocked certain personal financial management platforms — such as Mint — from accessing consumer data. Why? Perhaps due to concerns over potential hacks, perhaps due to fear of losing another touch point with consumers.

The point is internal bank’s data is no longer sufficient for modelling credit rating of customers. There is a whole new world of data sources for consumer’s social and financial behavior, and Fintech startups are at the fore front of it.

In partnership with FinTech startups, banks can provide improved credit facilities to their customer through models that have up to the minute data about customer behavior with all variables considered.

The Winners and Losers in the Banking Industry

Rapidly evolving technology and changing customer expectations are forcing banks to rethink business models.

As customers become indifferent to brands and channel agnostics, opportunities for new entrants to make a real claim for market share present themselves. Digital-native competitors, customer-centric from inception, are moving in to challenge the banking status quo.

New industry players, born out of evolving technology and customer expectations, are shifting the banking ecosystems. In this setting banks’ digital transformation is imperative, with a changing environment necessitating a culture of innovation and customer-centricity.

Banks face growing pains as they develop an increasingly customer-centric model. Invisible silos that have inhibited innovation are devolved in favor of agile start-up like principles, so banking cultures start to reflect the pace of change in technology, and subsequently, customer expectations.

Despite growing pains, banks must evolve with culture of customer-centricity at the heart of their digital transformation. The industry has historically been slow to change. But as the pace of change intensifies, with technology enabled competition threatening the status-quo, banks must create internal structures geared to be agile and open to innovation.

Winners and Losers


The winners will be those that effectively organise their operation around the customer, as opposed to channels or products. The advancement of digital channels is paralleled by the customers’ expectation of a seamless, and integrated omni-channel experience. But, paradoxically banks aren’t structured in a manner which reflects this.

The ability to develop a single customer view, offering relevancy and personalisation at every step of the journey, is the holy grail. To achieve this, banks must create an organisational structure built with the customer at the front of the mind. The development of customer-centric banking models, therefore, will be crucial in 2016.

By becoming truly customer centric, banks can deliver the right services in the right way, at the right time, and through a channel that fits customer expectation. In order to do this, a complete focus on the customer is a fundamental requirement.

Banks must ask themselves some simple questions: What do customers need? What do customers want? And what might customers like if somebody else invents it?

With an ever increasing number of fintech players entering the market, these fundamental questions are as important as ever.

Banks face a battle against systems designed for a bygone era. The challenge today is how to remove friction, empower customers, offer value and support, and personalisation in real time. Intelligent use of data is key.

Naturally, not every fintech challenger will have longevity. Some will come and go; others will alter the banking ecosystem for some time to come. But, what is clear: if banks don’t want to lose customers to new digitally-native entrants, customers’ needs must be placed at the heart all thinking.

The blooming fintech industry offers opportunity as well as threat. Bank-fintech collaborations fantastic opportunities for personalised, seamless customer experience (for those who can spot who the fintech winners will be).


Credit: Jamie Harding.


The world has changed due to globalization and resulting interdependencies in economies and supply chains, advances in technology, rapid population growth and increasing global consumption. This has had a significant impact on the quality, availability and price of resources, including water, food and energy. It also puts increasing pressure on ecosystems that are essential to the economy and society.

This has political, social and commercial implications. Businesses are being forced to react to these changes in order to remain successful and, in many cases, are developing new business models that recognize the need to innovate and do more with less. Reporting needs to keep pace; the traditional reporting model was developed for an industrial world. Although it continues to play a valuable role with respect to stewardship of financial capital, it nonetheless focuses on a relatively narrow account of historical financial performance and of the value-creation process.

As business has become more complex and gaps in traditional reporting have become prominent, new reporting requirements have been added through a patchwork of laws, regulations, standards, codes, guidance and stock exchange listing requirements. This has led to an increase in the information provided through:

  • longer and more complex financial reports and management commentaries;
  • increased reporting on governance and remuneration; and
  • Standalone sustainability reporting which has also evolved rapidly over the past decade.

These developments, led by policy-makers, companies and other reporting organizations, investors and civil society, are welcome reactions designed to elicit the information needed in a changing world. However, while the architecture necessary to support changing information needs is developing, many currently perceive a reporting landscape of confusion, clutter and fragmentation. Much of the information now provided is disconnected and key disclosure gaps remain.

As a result, although there is evidence that investors recognize the materiality of non-financial factors, they do not feel that the information they have available is adequate for decision-making. For example, while there is management recognition that sustainability issues should be fully integrated into the strategy and operations of a company, only 21% of listed companies report any sustainability information based on Bloomberg research.

It is not enough to keep on adding more information; the connections need to be made clear and the clutter needs to be removed. Corporate reports are already long and, in many cases, they are getting longer. Length and excessive detail can obscure critical information rather than aid understanding.  Only the most material information should be included in the Integrated Report.

For many organizations, reporting is seen as a legal compliance process, rather than as a process for communicating what matters. Furthermore, different strands of reporting have tended to evolve separately, with additional requirements and information requests being bolted on to the existing model, rather than being integrated into it. The pressure to keep adding more continues to grow.

This has created a complex and overlapping set of disconnected disclosures. As a result, critical interdependencies that exist are not made clear, for example, between:

  • Strategy and risk,
  • Financial and non-financial performance,
  • Governance and performance, and
  • The organization’s own performance and that of others in its value chain

Coordinated, international action is needed now; the information available to management, investors and other stakeholders, and the way in which it is presented, have a fundamental impact on decision-making. The time has come to step back and rethink what information is needed to provide a clear, concise picture of performance, impacts and interdependencies. Such a picture must:

  • drive innovation,
  • be focused on communication and not just compliance, and
  • support resource allocation decisions that are consistent with sustained value creation and with long-term economic stability

In the context of financial reporting, international convergence has been recognized as important, and progress has been made towards international standards. Nevertheless, many other aspects of reporting continue to be governed by national or regional laws, regulations and stock exchange listing requirements, and by a mixture of mandatory and voluntary standards, codes and guidance.

In an increasingly global marketplace, comparability is important. Reporting requirements have evolved separately, and differently, in various jurisdictions. This has increased the reporting and administrative burden for the growing number of organizations that report in more than one jurisdiction. It has also resulted in diverging disclosure practices that inhibit investors and others from understanding and comparing the information they need for decision-making.


Bitcoin’s grave may have been dug, but the very technology behind its success is transitioning into new usage.

A blockchain is a data structure that makes it possible to create a digital ledger of transactions and share it among a distributed network of computers. It uses cryptography to allow each participant on the network to manipulate the ledger in a secure way without the need for a central authority.

Once a block of data is recorded on the blockchain ledger, it’s extremely difficult to change or remove. When someone wants to add to it, participants in the network — all of which have copies of the existing blockchain — run algorithms to evaluate and verify the proposed transaction. If a majority of nodes agree that the transaction looks valid — that is, identifying information matches the blockchain’s history — then the new transaction will be approved and a new block added to the chain.

The term blockchain today usually describes a version of this distributed ledger structure and distributed consensus process. There are different blockchain configurations that use different consensus mechanisms, depending on the type and size of the network and the use case of a particular company. The bitcoin blockchain, for example, is public and “permissionless”, meaning anyone can participate and contribute to the ledger. Many firms also are exploring private or “permissioned” blockchains whose network is made up only of known participants. Each of these blockchain implementations operate in different ways.

We can think of blockchain like this:

Assume an organization has 10 transactions per second. Each of those transactions receives its own digital signature. Using a tree structure, those signatures are combined and given a single digital fingerprint — a unique representation of those transactions at a specific time. That fingerprint is sent up the tree to the next layer of infrastructure, such as a service provider or telecom company. This process happens for every organization in the network until there is a single digital fingerprint that encompasses all the transactions as they existed during that particular second. Once validated, that fingerprint is stored in a blockchain that all the participants can see. A copy of that ledger is also sent back to each organization to store locally. Those signatures can be continuously verified against what is in the blockchain, giving companies a way to monitor the state and integrity of a particular asset or transaction.



Anytime a change to data or an asset is proposed, a new, unique digital fingerprint is created, that fingerprint is sent to each client node for validation. If the fingerprints don’t match, or if the change to the data doesn’t fit with the network’s agreed-upon rules, the transaction may not be validated. This setup means the entire network, rather than a central authority, is responsible for ensuring the validity of each transaction.

In a blockchain’s network everyone with a computer can participate or a small group of known entities that agree to participate. Each computer in a particular network is called a node. In its ideal state, each node has a copy of the entire ledger, similar to a local database, and works with other nodes to maintain the ledger’s consistency. That creates fault tolerance, so if one node disappears or goes down, all is not lost. The network protocol governs how those nodes communicate with one another.


The goal of a company is to create and sustain value in the short, medium and long term but there is an incessant focus on the short term.

Businesses are the engines of value creation. It is through their goal footprint and innovative capabilities that many of the challenges we face as a global society will be addressed. And they do this in the context of an increasingly interdependent, volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous business environment and one in which trust in businesses is low. If businesses are not making, and seen to be making, a positive contribution to the societies of which they are part then they will lose trust and value as a result.

But this is also a context where there are huge opportunities to create value through being able to connect and integrate the numerous sources and drivers of value both tangible and intangible. Over the years there has been a shift in macroeconomic value to a position now where most of the market value of companies lies in intangible assets. Yet many of the practices and processes that account for a company’s assets do not reflect this shift.

Increasingly, businesses are expected to report not just on profit but on their impact on the wider economy, society and the environment. There are numerous other reporting requirements, guidelines and standards in place; but none operate across the breadth of the business and its external context.

Integrated Reporting <IR> is far more than just a reporting framework. It helps a company:

  • Create Value: by better understanding and connecting the disparate sources and drivers of long-term value to enable better strategy formulation, decision making and implementation through their business model.
  • Tell the Story: of how value is created more effectively, both internally and externally, in a succinct way in order to win trust and secure reputation by encouraging better relationships with investors, employees and other stakeholders.


<IR> provides an umbrella under which other reporting requirements and existing information can be brought together. It provides a framework to help companies engage more effectively with all its key relationships and reflects a shift from a static approach to reporting to a two-way process that seeks continuous improvement. <IR> helps business deliver long-term sustainable business success in today’s challenging business environment and is at the forefront of innovation and excellence in corporate governance.

How Does <IR> Help Create Value For Business Success?

Value is no longer created only within the boundaries of a company. The value creation process crosses organizational and geographical boundaries through connecting numerous values drivers many of which are now intangible. This requires good information to inform good  decision making and a clear strategy and business model – all of which rely on internal cohesion created through a clear understanding of what the organization is seeking to achieve and how.

<IR> helps a company understand its value creation process and connect the information, value creating activities and the relationships through which the value is created inside and outside the organization. Changes in strategy may be driven by internal activities, but are more often driven by changes in the external environment such as changing demographics, whether aging or youthful population, or resource and energy limitations. These changes can be risks but they can be opportunities if they are identified, assessed and managed effectively and used to create competitive advantage. The dynamic and interdependent nature of these changes, and the time horizons over which they will impact, has implications for the way companies think, make decisions and report on their activities.

Corporate governance works to ensure that the whole process through which value is created is fully realized. The ability to assess a company’s overall governance and performance in the context of macroeconomic social and environmental factors is of central importance to institutional investors and the ultimate beneficiaries for whom they act, as well as employees, governments and society as a whole.

This requires companies to show that they can report the right information in a way that shows that management has a real insight into the business and that boards are exercising effective governance. Reporting that is too dependent on historical financial performance can result in information that is critical to the assessment of an organization’s governance and long-term success being omitted or reported in a selective, disconnected or inconsistent way.

But more disclosure does not equate to better reporting. The focus has to be on disclosing not just a broader set of information but the relevant and interconnected information needed by investors and other stakeholders to assess the organization’s long-term prospects in clear, concise, connected and comparable format, which will enable those organizations, their investors and others to make better short, medium and long-term decisions.

Driving sustainable long-term performance starts with a deep understanding of your business model and a clear articulation of what success looks like. From this flows strategic alignment, the right metrics – financial and non-financial – and an appreciation of business risks. All these are prerequisites for sustainable, high performing business. <IR> framework encourages the kind of integrated thinking that we need to drive performance internally and report our progress externally.

Bank Chain


Distribution of technology within the banking industry is not a balanced mix with investment markets having a track record of aggressive technology adoption, retail and commercial banking on the other is playing catch-up. It’s all about The Bankchain.

This is because investment markets are built on the tactical deployment of technology as a strategic weapon, while retail banks are built on the strategic deployment of technology as a long-term investment.

This is changing as the cost and power of technology changes, but when you look at data analytics, cloud, APIs and other innovations, the investment firms far outstrip their retail brethren in deployment and use of such services. Just look at co-location, low-latency, high-frequency trading structures and you’ll agree, so it’s interesting to see the largest density of blockchain startups appear in the clearing and settlement space.

In the traditional clearing and settlement system, settle happens three days (T3). Fintech startups are pushing a zero day real-time clearing rather than the T3 system. Startups are receiving approval for issuance of public securities on the blockchain.

Quite a number of private stocks and equities trading platform providers are pushing in the direction of blockchain technology. Some have gone as far as partnering with hardware companies to offer hardware security key to protect transactions.

Start bankers and co-founder and running these starts which helps them to quickly gain trust and are gaining investment from a lot of banks, including JP Morgan, Citigroup, BNP Paribas, PNC, and others.

The Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) has also gone into partnership with blockchain startups to help develop solutions based on these technologies to manage their solution.

There has been significant press release about a blockchain startup that has the ability to process over a billion transactions a day, and behind them as usual is a giant from the international banking community.

A consortium of 42 banks dedicated to developing blockchain technology for settlements and payments, among other things, and has started an active blockchain-as-a-service trial between 11 banks (Barclays, BMO Financial Group, Credit Suisse, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, HSBC, Natixis, Royal Bank of Scotland, TD Bank, UBS, UniCredit and Wells Fargo) using Microsoft Azure and Erethreum.

Ethereum, launched in mid-2015, offers its own decentralized blockchain platform that allows each blockchain to be customized to fit the specific security that’s subject to clearance and settlement.

A blockchain based protocol was also developed by bitcoin provider designed mainly to be a settlement system. It is meant to be a consensus-based enterprise ledger system for financial institutions that uses a proprietary protocol derived from the blockchain protocol, but not blockchain-based. This is interesting because the company behind it was the first company to receive a trust company charter from the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), enabling the firm to create a Trust Company. For 2016, the team is hard at work implementing ACH deposits, real-time streaming market data and other features.

There is also the ‘settlement coin’ that lets its users ‘color’ a tiny fraction of a bitcoin with a specific attribute. This in essence ties it to a real-world asset while keeping bitcoin’s best attributes – including its cryptographic security and fraud-proof ledger – and has actively been focusing on securities settlement as one of its early use cases, also in partnership with another bank.

Foreign exchange and securities transactions are also experimenting with blockchain technology with VISA up front developing a solution to improve remittance service in terms of fees, speed and ease of use.

There is so much happening all around to improve efficiency of the traditional banking system globally, and it brings to mind the question:

How is Africa poised to tackle the inefficiencies in our system?

Can we open our arms the same way we did in the payment space to the blockchain system?