USC isn’t really a blockchain project as much as a market infrastructure project — even if it leans on blockchain jargon for the purpose of gaining popular momentum. …
On paper, the technology promises to un-encumber cash collateral by creating a much more reliable form of distributed settlement, requiring a fraction of the collateral needed to operate a comparable centralised system.
She points to possible conflicts of interests. The project could just aim at convincing regulators that settlement processes are robust.
Hence most blockchain ventures today equate to nothing more than a lobbying effort by banks to get decentralized settlement approved again, ideally without any of the associated collateral headaches.
Can a USC-type project operate without support by the central bank? Kaminska says no since only the central bank can credibly monitor whether the promised backing of USC by base money actually is observed.