About

Velmie is a leading provider of Blockchain solutions for Finance and

Ecommerce. Being recognized as Top Blockchain Solutions Provider
by Clutch.co in 2018, our company put a lot of efforts in order to
educate executives and entrepreneurs about Blockchain and
Distributed Ledger technologies, helping to identify the practical
sense of it. Despite of a cryptocurrency hype, there are a lot of real-
world use cases remain undiscovered or underestimated. Many also
don’t recognize Blockchain as something that can be used
somewhere else except coin speculations and ICOs. This situation
puts many companies at risk of being affected by disruptive
presence of Blockchain and our mission is to help to figure out how
this technology can contribute to your business, making it secure,
scalable, more efficient, sustainable and, the most importantly,
making it more profitable.

Whether you have an idea, on-going project, or you

are just curious about Blockchain; we provide free
consultations. We will educate you and your team on
what it will take to accomplish a project and what
technologies we recommend to do the job right.

For more information please visit Velmie.com

Or drop us a line at hello@velmie.com

 Table of Contents
What is Blockchain? ............................................................................................ 4
The Key Components of Blockchain ......................................................................... 5
Why to Use Blockchain? ....................................................................................... 8
Debunking Common Myths ...................................................................................10
Framework .......................................................................................................16

Distributed Database ..........................................................................................16

Distributed Ledger ..............................................................................................17
Blockchain .......................................................................................................17
Wrapping Up ....................................................................................................18
Business Models and Licensing Strategy ...................................................................19

Maturity ...........................................................................................................20
Use Cases and Industry Sectors .............................................................................20
Percentage of DLT Platforms Tracking Different ..........................................................22
Types of DLT Users ............................................................................................22
Future Trajectory ................................................................................................24

Reduction of Fraud .............................................................................................26

KYC ...............................................................................................................28
Trading Platforms ..............................................................................................30
Payments ........................................................................................................32
Aggregation of Microgrids to Virtual Power Plants ........................................................37

Examples for Local Trading Between Small Consumers and Prosumers via Blockchain ..........38
Asset Tracking, Bill of Lading, Transfer of Title ...........................................................39
Financialisation of Commodities.............................................................................39
Fewer Intermediaries Through Immutable Records and Reconciliation Reporting ..................40
Developments and Outlook ...................................................................................41

Faster and Leaner Logistics in Global Trade ..............................................................43

Improving Transparency and Traceability in Supply Chains .............................................45
Automating Commercial Processes in Logistics with Smart Contracts ...............................48

© Velmie, 2018

 Introduction to Blockchain

‘Blockchain’ has become one of the most hyped technologies since the
Internet. It is also one of the most poorly understood. A recent HSBC
global survey found that 80% of those who have heard of ‘Blockchain’
said they don’t understand it. This state of affairs exists despite the fact
that significant effort has been made to explain blockchain technology to
non-technical audiences through the mainstream media, industry reports,
academic and online courses, and other channels.

What is Blockchain?

In simple terms, Blockchain is a type of database

that is replicated over a peer-to-peer (P2P) network.
However, this definition could also apply to other
types of distributed databases that have no central
database manager, such as ones sold by software
vendors like Oracle. So, what makes Blockchain
special?

The principal way in which Blockchain is different from other

distributed databases is that Blockchain is designed to achieve
consistent and reliable agreement over a record of events (e.g.,
“who owns what”) between independent participants who may have
different motivations and objectives.

Put in a slightly different way, participants in Blockchain network

reach consensus about changes to the state of the shared database
(i.e., transactions amongst participants) without needing to trust the
integrity of any of the network participants or administrators. The
agreement between Blockchain network participants over the state

© Velmie, 2018

of the database is achieved through a consensus mechanism, which
ensures that each participant’s view of the shared database matches
the view of all other participants. The combination of the consensus
mechanism with a specific data structure allows Blockchain to solve
the so-called ‘double spending’ problem – the same digital file
being ‘copy-and-pasted’ and transferred multiple times – without
requiring a centralised ledger or party that prevents users from
duplicating/spending the same digital file twice. Blockchain can thus
facilitate the transfer of assets and other data without needing a
trusted central authority.

The elimination of a central third-party administrator brings further

benefits. Put simply, participants can independently verify that what
they see (i.e., the content of the database at a specific moment in
time) is consistent with what every other participant also sees. This
ensures that all participants have a consistent view of the shared
database state. As a result, any improper alteration of the data
(e.g., tampering by a malicious actor) will be immediately detected
and rejected by all participants. This ability of Blockchain network
participants to independently verify the integrity of the shared
database without having to rely on a trusted third party is one of the
main value propositions of using Blockchain.

The Key Components of Blockchain

Blockchain generally has the following five components:

1. Cryptography

Use of a variety of cryptographic techniques including cryptographic

one-way hash functions, Merkle trees and public key infrastructure
(private-public key pairs).

2. P2P Network

© Velmie, 2018

Network for peer discovery and data sharing in a peer-to-peer
fashion.

3. Consensus Mechanism

Algorithm that determines the ordering of transactions in an

adversarial environment (i.e., assuming not every participant is
honest).

4. Ledger

List of transactions bundled together in cryptographically linked

‘blocks’.

5. Validity Rules

Common set of rules of the network (i.e., what transactions are

considered valid, how the ledger gets updated, etc.)

Blockchain enable entities to have shared control over the access to

and evolution of data. Blockchain can provide clarity around asset
and data ownership by creating a complete, tamper-resistant record
of ownership changes. Network participants can consider the
blockchain as the authoritative data source of ownership claims.
Moreover, a participant can ‘own’ the recorded asset or data in
question when controlling the associated private key. This means
that the owner is in complete control of the asset or data; it cannot
be transferred without the owner’s explicit consent.

© Velmie, 2018

 A Brief History of Blockchain
Wider interest to Blockchain technology developed after the launch
of Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009. Bitcoin utilizes Blockchain
as a transaction ledger to securely record transfers of Bitcoins from
one party to another. However, Nakamoto’s original paper does not
mention the term ‘blockchain’, which first appears as ’block chain’ in
a comment in the original Bitcoin client C++ source code. Much of
Nakamoto’s writing focused on Bitcoin as an alternative currency
and store of value, with much less attention given to the many
different ‘non-currency’ uses of Blockchain technology (e.g., serving
as a voting system). Similar to many other buzzword technologies
(e.g., machine learning), Blockchain technology is less of a new
technology than a clever combination of existing technologies (P2P
networking, distributed timestamping, cryptographic hashing
functions, digital signatures, and Merkle trees, among others) that
have in some cases existed for decades.

A few years after Bitcoin was launched, attempts

were made to go beyond simple P2P value transfers
and offer functionality not available in Bitcoin. For
example, in 2012, the concept of ‘coloured coins’
emerged, which enabled the Bitcoin Blockchain to be
used to record and transfer ‘non-native’ assets and
data.

In 2013, public awareness of cryptocurrencies dramatically

increased, and a number of more established organisations began
to inspect Bitcoin and related technologies to see how they could be
exploited. The breadth of potential use cases facilitated by the
technology was noted, but many concluded that using a public
Blockchain such as Bitcoin was ill-suited for regulated corporations
for a variety of reasons. For instance, financial institutions seemed

© Velmie, 2018

uncomfortable using a public infrastructure run by anonymous
miners and powered by an unregulated, volatile currency. Legal and
reputational issues also gave many organisations pause. However,
many organisations recognised that the Blockchain - the particular
data structure underlying Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies forming
an auditable log of transaction records - was a key innovation.

Work began on how best to adapt Blockchain technology for the

needs of large and regulated organisations. For example, it was
determined that substituting Bitcoin’s anonymous miners with known
participants would allow institutions to remove the native currency
and replace the energy-intensive, computationally difficult proof-of-
work (PoW) puzzle needed for reaching consensus in Bitcoin with a
less resource-intensive and more efficient consensus algorithm.

Why to Use Blockchain?

Blockchain can be useful in situations where there is a desire to
minimize the degree of trust required between participants, or where
participants would like to reduce their dependence on an
intermediary service provider (e.g., central securities clearing
house). Problems arising from the abuse of trust, such as fraud,
have significant negative impact on business and trade: the global
financial cost of fraud is estimated to have been more than $4 trillion
in 2016 alone.

Historically, we have either relied on informal trust (e.g., handshake

agreement) or formal trust that functions by introducing
intermediaries (e.g., courts) through which legal recourse can be
sought in the event of misbehavior. However, these approaches are
far from perfect. Blockchain hold the promise of reducing the ‘trust
gap’ by making actions within the system independently verifiable by
each participant, introducing or improving accountability, and dis-
incentivizing misbehavior through public auditability.

© Velmie, 2018

There are a number of trust-related benefits that Blockchain bring:
data records or digital assets cannot be counterfeited or forged
once they have been recorded into the Blockchain. Assets and data
records cannot be created ‘out of thin air’ without participants
noticing, and ‘miners’ cannot transfer assets and data records of
other participants without their explicit consent (expressed in the
form of a digital signature).

Separate entities using Blockchain network can leverage that shared

infrastructure to effectively streamline inter-organizational business
processes, with strong verifiability guarantees to have a consistent
view of the data. This also enables the avoidance of costly and
error-prone reconciliation processes between isolated data ‘silos’.
Moreover, the ledger gives participants the assurance that everyone
is storing, seeing, using, and processing the same data as everyone
else. Fraud can be immediately detected, and auditing is made
significantly easier and less expensive as the Blockchain provides a
real-time audit trail. Blockchain can also go much further than
simply offering improved auditing or accountability. To paraphrase
Muneeb Ali, Co-founder of Blockstack, Blockchain can help us
move from a world where today we rely on ‘good guys’ and mottos
like “don’t be evil” to a world where Blockchain systems help ensure
we ‘can’t be evil’. In other words, the rules governing Blockchain can
effectively eliminate the types of unauthorized transfers or fraudulent
activity that have become all-to-common in many areas of business
and society.

© Velmie, 2018

 Blockchain Myths
While the use of Blockchain may provide transformative advantages
over other technologies in some cases, they are not a panacea and
do not magically solve every problem. Many publications, reports,
and news articles focus primarily on the ‘pros’ (and occasionally
exaggerate the positive impact Blockchain technology can have)
without mentioning or giving balanced attention to the ‘cons’. We
believe it is important to understand the limitations of Blockchain
technology, as well as the different trade-offs that arise as a result
of different architecture and design choices. Without a clear
understanding of these trade-offs, it is impossible to know where
Blockchain technology can be best applied, let alone whether it
should be considered at all.

Debunking Common Myths

MYTH: Blockchain is ‘trustless’

REALITY: Blockchain always require some degree of trust. Although

Blockchain may help reduce the need for trust, they do not
completely remove the need for trust. At the bare minimum, trust
must be placed in the underlying cryptography. In the case of a
permissioned network, trust must be placed in the operator(s)
and/or the validators. If well configured, permissioned Blockchain is
at best ‘trust-minimizing’ in the sense that they enable participants
to independently validate transactions and verify the state of the
system.

MYTH: Blockchain is immutable or ‘tamper-proof’

REALITY: Transactions on Blockchain network can be reversed by

network participants under specific circumstances. Similar to
‘trustlessness’, absolute immutability does not exist. The illusion that

© Velmie, 2018

Blockchain transactions are immutable stems from its append-only
data structure that suggests that data can only be added to, but not
removed from the database. However, blocks comprising
transactions can, in theory, be reversed if enough nodes decide to
collude. Reversing transactions may be even easier with
permissioned Blockchain than public Blockchain, where colluding
miners would at least need to spend computational power and/or
cryptocurrency funds to do so. However, permissioned Blockchain
actors are bound by legal contracts and agreements that are
designed to dis-incentivize collusion or other misbehavior. If ‘mining’
in a permissioned Blockchain is sufficiently decentralized across
separate entities with different motivations, one can consider the
Blockchain to be tamper-resistant.

MYTH: Blockchain is 100% secure

REALITY: Blockchain is not automatically more secure than other

systems. Blockchain employ cryptography for authentication,
permission enforcement, integrity verification, and other areas. The
mere application of cryptography, however, does not automatically
make the system more secure per se. The system may be more
resilient as data storage and permissions are distributed, but
compromising the private keys of some network participants could
give attackers full access to the shared database, including the
ability to reverse transaction history. As a result, the management of
private keys constitutes a crucial challenge. There is also the widely
discussed “51% attack”, where malicious nodes can double spend
or wreak other havoc on Blockchain.

MYTH: Blockchain is ‘truth machine’

REALITY: GIGO (‘garbage in, garbage out’) applies to every

Blockchain that uses non-native digital assets and/or external data
inputs. Blockchain is particularly well suited for the transfer of assets
or data native to the respective Blockchain (e.g., Bitcoin). However,
Blockchain cannot assess whether a given input from the ‘outside

© Velmie, 2018

world’ is accurate/true or not. If the input is inaccurate or wrong, the
Blockchain will just treat it as any other input and consider all
transfers involving the input as valid as long as certain conditions are
met. This goes back to the first Blockchain myth of trustlessness: if
‘off-chain’ assets or data sources are digitally represented on the
Blockchain, a trusted third party is required to verify and guarantee
the accuracy of the input when inserting it into Blockchain.

© Velmie, 2018

 Private vs. Public Blockchain
In order to distinguish these new permissioned Blockchain from the
open, public Blockchain that power cryptocurrency systems, the
industry started using terms like ‘private’, ‘permissioned’ or ‘closed’
to refer to Blockchain network where access is restricted to a
specific set of vetted participants. In practice, these terms are often
used interchangeably. However, Blockchain can be further
segmented by distinguishing between different types of permission
models. The permission model refers to the different types of
permissions that are granted to participants of Blockchain network.
There are three major types of permission that can be set when
configuring Blockchain network: Read (who can access the ledger
and see transactions), Write (who can generate transactions and
send them to the network), and ‘Commit’ (who can update the state
of the ledger).

The key differences between open and closed

Blockchain relate to their security and threat model.
Public permissionless Blockchain operate in a hostile
environment with unknown actors, requiring the use
of ‘crypto-economics’ – a combination of game
theory and economic incentive design applied to
cryptographic systems – to incentivise participants to
behave honestly (e.g., by rewarding miners with
tokens native to the system, such as Bitcoins) and to
keep the network censorship-resistant – at least to a
certain extent.

In contrast, private permissioned Blockchain operate

in an environment where participants are already

© Velmie, 2018

known and vetted, which removes the need for a
native token to incentivise good behaviour.
Participants are held liable through off-chain legal
contracts and agreements, and are incentivised to
behave honestly via the threat of legal prosecution in
the case of misbehavior.

For the remainder of this study, we will focus on Blockchain systems

where access is restricted to a specific set of participants (i.e.,
private/permissioned/closed Blockchain). These terms will be used
interchangeably when referring to closed Blockchain.

© Velmie, 2018

 Deciphering Blockchain Jargon
A confusing number of new terms and buzzwords have emerged in
the last few years to describe the technology underlying systems
based on or inspired by Bitcoin. These different terms are often used
interchangeably, adding to the general confusion Blockchain
newcomers face. The first Blockchain were closely based on the
architecture of Bitcoin, where transactions sent across the system
are bundled into a new ‘block’. This new block references the
preceding block, effectively forming a chain of cryptographically
linked transaction bundles. New database systems have emerged
that are also often referred to as Blockchain, but which do not share
the main characteristics of ‘traditional’ Blockchain used by
cryptocurrencies. For instance, some are ‘block-less’ (i.e., not
grouping transactions into blocks, but directly chaining them
together), others do not broadcast all transactions to each
participant, and yet others do not reach consensus on the state of
the global ledger but rather on the state of sub-ledgers or channels.
Some systems have no similarities with early Blockchain except that
they use some of the same cryptographic primitives.
The development of these new types of systems, loosely built on the
original Bitcoin blockchain concept, has resulted in the emergence
of a new, more generic term – distributed ledger technology (DLT).
‘DLT’ has replaced ‘blockchain’ or ‘blockchain technology’ in 2016
as an umbrella term to refer to all these new systems that are built
on the premise of enabling a shared database between parties
seeking to reduce the need for trust or depending on an
intermediary. The trend seems to be reversing in 2017, however,
with ‘blockchain’ recently gaining in popularity again. It can be
observed that in practice, both terms are often mistakenly being
used interchangeably.

© Velmie, 2018

Framework

The following figure introduces a simple framework that can be used

to easily distinguish between traditional distributed databases,
distributed ledgers, and Blockchain. Distributed ledgers are a subset
of distributed databases, and Blockchain are a subset of distributed
ledgers.

Distributed Database

Distributed databases are a type of database which have no central

‘master database’ that unilaterally decides on updating the database
state. Rather, they are replicated across multiple nodes (and
devices) that collaborate to maintain a consistent view of the
database state. These systems are designed to provide fault
tolerance, i.e., ensuring that the system continues to work in case
some nodes fail and become unresponsive. However, it is assumed
that all nodes are honest as they are all cooperating and freely
sharing data with each other based on mutual trust. This means that

© Velmie, 2018

distributed databases are generally operated by a single entity that
maintains strict access control to the network, which operates in a
trusted environment.

Distributed Ledger

Distributed ‘ledgers’ are a subset of distributed databases that use a

different assumption about the relationship between nodes. Their
design is based on an adversarial threat model that mitigates the
presence of malicious (i.e., dishonest) nodes in the network. They
are designed to be Byzantine fault-tolerant, meaning that the
database should be able to synchronise and run even if a certain
number of nodes are acting maliciously. In contrast with traditional
distributed databases that operate in a trusted environment,
individual nodes do not trust their peers by default and thus need to
be able to a) independently verify and validate transactions that
update the database state, and b) independently recreate the
transaction data log (i.e., the entire transaction history).

Blockchain

Blockchain can be thought of as a special subset of distributed

ledgers that share the same adversarial threat model, but have
additional characteristics that set them apart. Interestingly, in the
enterprise Blockchain industry there is no clear consensus on the
definition of Blockchain. Some argue that systems called Blockchain
need to make use of a special, append-only data structure that is
composed of transactions batched into blocks, which are
cryptographically linked to each other to form a sequential, tamper-
evident chain that determines the ordering of transactions in the
system. Others use a broader definition that allows for the inclusion
of ‘block-less Blockchain’ (transactions are not batched into blocks,
but directly chained together and instantly confirmed), and
determine global data diffusion (i.e., all transactions are broadcast
to every node) as the distinctive characteristic.

© Velmie, 2018

Wrapping Up

In general, the term ‘distributed ledger technology’ refers to all

initiatives and projects that are building systems to enable the
shared control over the evolution of data without a central party, with
individual systems referred to as ‘distributed ledgers’. If one wants to
describe a system that has global data diffusion and/or uses a data
structure of chained blocks, one should call it a ‘Blockchain’.

However, ‘Blockchain technology’ and ‘distributed

ledger technology’ are still commonly used
interchangeably despite attempts to semantically
separate them by their different underlying
architectures. It can be observed that both umbrella
terms have evolved into including flexible
architectures that apply some of the cryptographic
principles used in early Blockchain to traditional
distributed databases as well, although these
systems may not provide the same independent
verification mechanisms and thus may not truly work
in adversarial environments.

© Velmie, 2018

Market Targeting And Usage

• Financial and insurance-related DLT use cases are the most

heavily targeted industry sectors.
• 30% of identified DLT use cases are related to banking and
financial services, followed by government (13%), insurance (12%)
and healthcare (8%).
• Attention given to non-monetary uses (identity, supply chain,
intellectual property, etc.) is increasing.
• Financial sector institutions (and banks in particular) currently
constitute the most significant user base of DLT service providers.
• While the majority of infrastructure providers have a generic
solution that can be applied to any industry, half of them target a
specific industry sector or business case(s).
• The median number of projects supported by infrastructure
providers amounts to seven; however large differences between
respondents are observed, with figures ranging from three to over
400 projects.
• Some enterprise DLT frameworks have been downloaded as many
as 20,000 times.
• Number of individual corporations using a specific platform or
network ranges up to 70.

Business Models and Licensing Strategy

• Apache 2 and MIT license are the most frequently used open-
source licenses; getting the product accepted in the space
constitutes the main reason for open-sourcing the codebase (79%).
• It is more common for infrastructure providers to fully open-source
their codebase (27%) than network operators (8%) or application
providers (0%); one-third of infrastructure providers currently running
proprietary platforms plan to open them in the near future.

© Velmie, 2018

• Significant uncertainty exists over DLT revenue models: most
infrastructure providers use a combination of multiple revenue
models, whereas 42% of operators are focusing on a single revenue
model.
• 60% of infrastructure providers with open codebase monetise their
platform by providing consulting services; 44% of proprietary
software vendors are still undecided about what revenue model to
use.
• Monetisation of DLT infrastructure platforms primarily occurs at
higher stack levels (consulting, application development, support),
effectively turning them into full service providers.
• Application developers are often moving down the stack and
building networks themselves.
• Lack of clarity around roles and positioning of enterprise DLT
actors indicates the ecosystem is still maturing.

Maturity

• 39% of study participants have production-ready platforms and

36% are running advanced pilots; software services are further
ahead than operators.
• The current DLT landscape is highly fragmented, with dozens of
competing protocol frameworks and hundreds of isolated, small-
scale networks mostly used for testing purposes.
• While the infrastructure layer is maturing, the deployment of
production-ready networks is lagging behind.
• We expect to see the emergence of large-scale networks
(industry-specific, use case-specific, and geography-specific) in
the near future; focus will gradually shift to the application layer with
the main value created at the network layer.

Use Cases and Industry Sectors

50% of infrastructure providers provide a generic DLT platform or

framework that can be used to develop networks or applications for
any number of use cases in a variety of industries. Similarly, 40% of

© Velmie, 2018

application developers indicate that they build applications for any
use case available and do not limit themselves to a specific industry
sector. Nevertheless, some of them do currently specialise in various
use cases and target particular sectors as part of their business
strategy to promote their infrastructure platform, despite having
general-purpose implementations that could be deployed for every
imaginable use case. In contrast, all operators are focusing either
on a specific industry or business case.
66% of study participants are explicitly focusing on developing
sector-specific solutions that are purposefully designed to serve a
particular set of use cases. Not surprisingly, infrastructure providers
and application developers tend to focus on more use cases and
sectors than operators: the latter often build a network or application
that serves a specific business case.

We have compiled a list of 132 DLT use cases and segmented them
by industry (the following figure). Findings indicate that almost a
third of all use cases featured in the list are applicable to the
banking and finance industry. This may be an indication that the
current focus of DLT still primarily lies in monetary use cases, which
may simply be a consequence of the first (public) Blockchain
powering currency-related applications.

Our survey data confirms the use case estimate above: financial
services, payments, and banking services are the most frequently
targeted sectors by study participants (the following figure). Capital
markets are clearly dominating, followed by insurance and trade
finance. Although much focus is still put on monetary use cases, an
increasing interest in nonmonetary use cases and applications can
be observed (e.g., identity, supply chain).

Interestingly, only 8% of operators currently use their DLT network or

application for payments. In contrast 81% of infrastructure providers
indicate that their DLT platform is suitable for payments, and 85% of
infrastructure providers are specifically focusing on capital markets.
All operators composed of established banks and technology firms

© Velmie, 2018

are primarily focusing on DLT applications for digital identities and
regulatory compliance, whereas ‘start-up operators’ are mostly
engaged in activities related to capital markets. Application
developers are currently most frequently involved in developing
applications for insurance and regulatory compliance (80%).

Percentage of DLT Platforms Tracking Different

70% of study participants indicate that their DLT systems are

suitable for tracking financial assets ranging from currencies,
securities, and derivatives to syndicated loans and loyalty points,
among others. Only the tracking of intangible data records (e.g.,
medical records, KYC records, ownership records, social media
content, etc.) is cited more frequently (73%). 55% also indicate that
their DLT solutions are used to track digital identities as well as
physical items in tokenised form, such as diamonds and gold,
artworks, and, generally, all types of goods that pass through a
supply chain.

Types of DLT Users

The survey data on the major users of DLT are in line with the
previously highlighted view that the financial sector is the main user
of DLT: 72% of study participants indicate that banks are using their
platforms and/or services, and 42% report that custodians and
exchanges are engaged in activities involving their DLT solutions.

Interestingly, ‘non-DLT’ financial technology (FinTech) companies

constitute the second largest user of DLT platforms (56%), and a
fourth of platforms indicate that private individuals are also using
their offerings. Another interesting data point is that 36% of study
participants report that regulators and government agencies are
using their services, indicating that the public sector is already
significantly involved in DLT activities.

© Velmie, 2018

The figure also highlights the large diversity of user types that are
engaged in DLT. The ‘Other’ category contains a variety of firms
focusing on different types of technologies, system integrators, and
Internet of Things (IoT) companies, but also includes service
providers such as KYC aggregators. Moreover, energy companies,
title and real estate companies, airlines, retailers, hospitals, and
healthcare organisations are testing or using DLT applications as
reported by study participants.

While the majority of infrastructure providers indicate that their main

customers and users stem from the financial sector (mainly banks
and FinTech companies), it is more difficult to determine a ‘typical’
user type for network and application operators as they are often
focusing on specific use cases or industries. Unsurprisingly,
infrastructure providers have a more diverse number of user types,
although this is often limited to user types from the same industry
sector. This reinforces the observed targeting of specific sectors by
many software services. In contrast, operators generally have a
lower number of user types that participate in their network: 78% of
operators have four or less user types, compared to only 29% of
infrastructure providers.

Enterprise DLT systems are being used by groups of users as small

as five to as large as 12,000. Data obtained from survey participants
indicates that software downloads range from 12 to 20,000
downloads per infrastructure provider, suggesting that the number of
(loosely defined) ‘users’ could be as high as 20,000 for a single DLT
framework.
The data suggest that the number of corporations using a specific
platform or network remains rather small to date, with figures
ranging from five entities to a maximum of 70.

© Velmie, 2018

Future Trajectory

We have yet to see the emergence of dominant networks with a

considerable number of participants that have established
themselves as platforms upon which applications can be built. For
this reason, the number of publicly known applications built on
enterprise distributed ledger networks is still rather small, and the
majority constitute permissioned applications that are built on the
public Bitcoin or Ethereum main nets. However, we anticipate that in
the medium to longer-term, the core protocol layer will consolidate
around a limited number of enterprise DLT frameworks and
platforms that will co-exist and serve different business needs and
requirements. A significant number of small- to large-scale
networks will be deployed on top of that core infrastructure layer,
and these networks will be operated by a wide variety of entities and
institutions. The main focus will thus shift from the core protocol
layer and the network layer to the application layer.

As a result, the main value will likely not be created

at the protocol layer, but at the network layer
operators that manage large networks composed of
key players of a specific industry or region will be
able to leverage their network to attract new
participants, applications, and plug-ins that want to
interact with the enterprise network.

Operators acting as the gatekeepers to the underlying network can

then monetise the network by requiring access fees to applications
and plug-ins that want to get access to the shared market
infrastructure. After the major networks have been established, the
key focus of developers will shift to the application layer. It is
reasonable to assume that a rising number of applications will be
ledger-agnostic and interact with various enterprise networks. Some

© Velmie, 2018

applications may also connect different enterprise networks and
facilitate interaction between otherwise separate networks.

© Velmie, 2018

 Four Blockchain Use Cases for Banks

Reduction of Fraud

Chris Mager of BNY Mellon Treasury Services acknowledged that

“one of the main challenges facing the banking industry today is the
growth of fraud and cyber-attacks.” Traditionally, bank ledgers have
been created within a centralised database. This model has been
more susceptible to hackers and cyber-attacks as all the
information is located in one place – usually secured behind
outdated legacy IT systems. Hackers and cyber-criminals are well
aware of evolving digital technology and have been able to bypass
these security systems to commit data breaches and fraud.

In contrast, as the Blockchain is decentralized it is less prone to this

type of fraud. By using Blockchain there would not only be real-time
execution of payments but also complete transparency which would
enable real-time fraud analysis and prevention.

How?

Chris Huls of Rabobank defined Blockchain as “a ledger or database

that can store all types of information or value exchange that is
publicly available for all participants in a group where they all see
exactly the same data.” Therefore, as Blockchain is checked at
every step of a transaction by independent miners, with all data
being open and publicly available, there is a real-time analysis and
verification of every bit of data and all information during the
transaction. The Blockchain ledger can provide a historical record of
all documents shared and compliance activities undertaken for each
banking customer. Malicious attempts to view or change the data
become part of the data itself, making third-party hacks
immediately obvious.

© Velmie, 2018

For example, this record could be used to provide evidence that a
bank has acted in accordance with the requirements placed upon it
– should regulators ask for such clarification. It would also be of
particular use in identifying entities attempting to create fraudulent
histories. Subject to the provisions of data protection regulation, the
data within it could even be analysed by the banks to spot
irregularities or foul play – directly targeting criminal activity. This
would be an advantage over the current banking and payments
systems, which are more susceptible to fraud and hacking. Chris
Huls stated, though, that there would need to be collaboration to
achieve this in Blockchain. Banks would need to partner with
regulators and FinTechs to “develop credible, decentralised ledgers
permitting rapid adoption of global real-time payments and
settlement.”

On 30 December 2015 Nasdaq announced that it had made its first

ever share trade using Blockchain technology. Nasdaq used its
proprietary Linq platform (developed in collaboration with Chain.com
and global design firm IDEO) to sell shares.

As Nasdaq has pointed out, within the multi-step manual process

used today in banks and financial institutions there is not only plenty
of room for error but also for fraud. By utilising Blockchain,
organisations can reduce risk and administrative burden, as well as
saving time and money.

Nevertheless, banks must consider that Blockchain doesn’t yet

eliminate all types of fraud.

In August 2016, nearly 120,000 units of digital currency Bitcoin worth

about US $72 million was stolen from the exchange platform Bitfinex
in Hong Kong. The Bitcoin was stolen from users’ segregated wallets
and amounted to about 0.75% of all Bitcoin in circulation at that
time. Since the hack, Bitfinex has taken steps to reimburse account
holders with “BFX tokens” which are cryptographic tokens on the

© Velmie, 2018

Omni Blockchain that can be exchanged for $1 beneficial interests in
iFinex (Bitfinex’s parent company).

KYC

Know Your Customer (“KYC”) requests currently can cause delay to

banking transactions, typically taking 30 to 50 days to complete to a
satisfactory level. Current KYC processes also entail substantial
duplication of effort between banks (and other third party
institutions). While annual compliance costs are high, there are also
large penalties for failing to follow KYC guidelines properly.
The average bank spends £40 million a year on KYC Compliance,
according to a recent Thomson Reuters Survey, which also revealed
that some banks spend up to £300 million annually on KYC
compliance, Anti Money Laundering (“AML”) checks and Customer
Due Diligence (“CDD”).

Since 2009, regulatory fines, particularly in the USA, have followed

an upward trend with record-breaking fines levied during 2015. On-
going regulatory change, with no one internationally agreed
standard, makes it increasingly hard for banks to remain compliant.
Thus, as it can take such a long time to on-board a new customer
because of lengthening KYC procedures, this is having an
increasingly negative effect on customer experience.

Chris Huls of Rabobank proposed the use case that

“KYC statements can be stored on the Blockchain.”
Once a bank has KYC’d a new customer they can
then put that statement, including a summary of the
KYC documents, on Blockchain which can then be
used by other banks and other accredited
organisations (such as insurers, car rental firms, loan
providers etc.) without the need to ask the customer
to start the KYC process all over again.

© Velmie, 2018

These organisations will know that the customer’s ID documents
have been independently checked and verified so they will not need
to carry out their own KYC checks, reducing their administrative
burdens and costs. As data stored on Blockchain is irreversible, it
would provide a single source of truth thereby minimising the risk of
duplication or error.

There is also the advantage for the customer that they only have to
supply KYC documents once (until they need to be updated) and
that they are not then disclosed to any other party (except for their
own bank) as the other organisations will not need to see and check
the ID documents but will just rely on the Blockchain verification.

SWIFT has established a KYC Registry with 1,125 member banks

sharing KYC documentation – however, this is only 16% of the 7,000
banks on their network. The KYC Registry meets the need for an
efficient, shared platform for managing and exchanging
standardised KYC data and it’s free to upload the documentation to
the Registry and to share it with other institutions.
SWIFT validates the data rigorously, informs the client if it’s
incomplete or needs updating, and sends out alerts to
correspondents whenever the data changes.

There will still be issues surrounding security and privacy of

customer’s KYC information but, as long as all KYC is held on a
private Blockchain rather than a public one, these issues should be
minimal from a bank customer’s point of view. The data on the
Blockchain will merely be a reference point with a digital signature or
cryptographic hash – which would give individuals access to the
relevant client information in a repository separate to the Blockchain,
ensuring a secure and private way of conducting and storing a
customer’s KYC information. Equally important, though, is ensuring
financial institutions only have permissioned access on a temporary
basis so that access to KYC information is only granted when strictly
necessary for that purpose, and for no other ancillary reason.

© Velmie, 2018

Therefore, it is evident that Blockchain could have a major role in
streamlining these KYC and AML processes – although this may
require cross-border consensus as to what is regarded acceptable
KYC documentation and what needs to be done in terms of
acceptable verification of those documents.

According to a Goldman Sachs Report, Case Study 7, the banking

sector can achieve 10% headcount reduction with the introduction of
Blockchain in the KYC procedures. This amounts to around $160
million in cost-saving annually.

Blockchain will also reduce the amount of budgetary resources

allocated for employee training, there will be 30% headcount
reduction amounting to $420 million.

Overall operational cost savings are estimated to be around $2.5

billion dollars. AML penalties will also be reduced by estimated
amount between $0.5 to $2 billion dollars.

Trading Platforms

A bank could set up a new trading platform (or move across an

existing trading platform) on Blockchain protocol. The Blockchain
technology offers a potential new medium to exchange assets
without centralised trusts or intermediaries – and without the risk of
double spending.

As already discussed, Blockchain can eliminate the threat or the risk

of fraud in all areas of banking, and this could equally apply to a
trading platform. Furthermore, Blockchain would also address issues
such as operational risk and administrative costs as it can be made
transparent and immutable.
The traceability and the permanent historic record that would exist
on Blockchain backing up every asset or item of value that was

© Velmie, 2018

traded would provide assurance and authenticity all the way through
the supply chain.

In practice, when a high-value item is first created, a corresponding

digital token is issued by a trusted central authority which acts to
authenticate the product’s point of origin. Then, every time the
product is bought and sold the digital token is moved in parallel so
that a real-world chain of ownership is created and mirrored by the
Blockchain history of that digital token.

The digital token is acting as a virtual “certificate of authenticity”

which would have the advantage that it is far harder to steal or forge
than a piece of paper. Upon receiving the digital token, the final
recipient of the product will then be able to verify the chain of
custody all the way back to the point of creation.

The Blockchain gives the benefit of distributed and verifiable trust

that was not present before.

As a non-banking example, Everledger, a permanent ledger for

diamond certification, has adopted the use of Bitcoin as a mark of
authenticity providing transparency for all parties involved – a clear
attempt to prevent diamond fraud.

Similarly, the immutability and digital uniqueness inherent in

Blockchain offers the ability to provide a secure transfer of value and
delivery of a solution to the trade finance problem of endorsement.

The challenge of maintaining data privacy among counterparties to

trade transactions is also overcome by utilizing Blockchain
technology where tokenization, in the form of cryptography, is used
to protect the trade data with parties only allowed to access to
permissioned information with the correct security key. This should
enable the most confidential of transactions, especially financial
transactions, to still take place on such a trading platform.

© Velmie, 2018

Clearing and settlement costs billions and, according to Santander’s
2015 report, it is estimated that moving this into a digital record,
near real-time and over the internet, will save the industry $20 billion
a year or more in overhead costs due to D+3. D+3, or T+3, is the
three-day clearing and settlement cycle common to most
investment markets today.

Many firms are leading the charge to digitalise the clearing and
settlement structures from Blythe Masters’ Digital Asset Holdings
with the Hyperledger to Overstock with T0, along with many other
key and emerging players such as Epiphyte, Clearmatics and SETL.

Payments

The main use case that is focused on when looking at the

possibilities of blockchain for banking is that of payments. Chris
Huls of Rabobank said that Blockchain could be used as “another
way of paying each other, not depending on SWIFT and other
payment schemes.”

Chris Mager of BNY Mellon also recognises that there

is a potential role for Blockchain in payments and
that currently there is an “unprecedented period of
change and transformation.” Mager recognised that
blockchain could have benefits for not only bank
customers, but this could also lead to operational
efficiencies and cost savings for banks themselves.
He also stated that payment systems collectively are
currently under a lot of pressure, as there has been
urgency to modernise payments and to address the
questions of safety and security since the 2008
financial crash. This has led to new market entrants,

© Velmie, 2018

such as FinTechs, looking to solve these problems
using Blockchain.

The existing payment system has always gone through banks and
central banks, a process that was first put into place in the 1970s
and 1980s. Apart from speeding up money transfers, blockchain
could also help banks to operate continuously, 24 hours a day. This
is now somewhat expected by customers who want an omni-
channel banking experience at any time day or night – especially,
according to Chris Mager, for “millennials who are now firmly within
the workforce and want a better, quicker and easier way to make
payments.”

Rabobank has been heavily involved in the on-going development

and use of Ripple Lab’s Blockchain Ripple protocol. It was
announced in December 2014 that the three banks had started to
test Blockchain technology in making payments to customers and
cross-border transactions. Ripple has said that its technology could
give banks a 33% reduction in their operating costs during the
international payment process and allow lenders to move money “in
seconds.”

Ripple is a “real-time gross settlement system” (RTGS), currency

exchange and remittance network. Released in 2012, Ripple
purports to enable “secure, instant and nearly free global financial
transactions of any size with no chargebacks.” It supports tokens
representing fiat currency, cryptocurrency, commodity or any other
unit of value. Ripple can be used by banks for an open-source
approach to payments to replace many of the common
intermediaries in the payments industry, thereby passing on savings
to partner institutions, and thus by extension, to their customers.

Thus Blockchain can be used to make payments in real-time

globally, with real-time execution, complete transparency, real-time
fraud analysis and prevention and also at a reasonable cost. The

© Velmie, 2018

only issue with Ripple, at the moment, is that it is a proprietary
Blockchain network that cannot yet connect with other systems. In
order to connect Ripple to other Blockchain protocols an inter-ledger
protocol will have to be developed, tested and put in place.

There are, however, other Blockchain protocols in limited use and in

development for the payments industry. In Estonia, LHV Bank is
experimenting with Blockchain through coloured coins called “Cuber”
as a “cryptographically protected” certificate of deposit. The project
would enable the bank’s FinTech offshoot, Cuber Technology, to
develop mobile apps using Blockchain to provide free P2P fiat
currency transfers.

Rain Lõhmus, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of LHV Bank, said

that all Estonian government and finance infrastructure relies on
public-key cryptography, which makes exploring Blockchain to be a
natural next step.

As Chris Mager from BNY Mellon also highlighted, VISA Europe

Collab and BTL Group are working on a separate concept to make
cross-border payments between banks using distributed ledgers.
The project will use BTL’s crossborder settlement platform Interbit to
explore the ways in which a distributed ledger-based settlements
system (as well as utilising “smart contracts”) can reduce the friction
of domestic and cross-border transfers between banks. This is a
similar goal to Ripple but, as it is based on the Ethereum smart
contracts concept, it is not proprietary like Ripple and thus is
potentially more scalable.

Chris went on to explain that, similarly, UBS, Deutsche Bank,

Santander and BNY Mellon have teamed up with blockchain
developer Clearmatics and trading company ICAP to create a new
digital representation of fiat currency called the “Utility Settlement
Coin.” Although this is still a proof of concept, it could potentially
reduce friction in delivery versus payment scenarios by providing a

© Velmie, 2018

faster and less expensive settlement mechanism than existing funds
transfer and currency exchange mechanisms.

© Velmie, 2018

 Use Cases for Blockchain in Energy &
Commodity Management
Intermittent renewable power generation is on the rise, and system
stability on local, national and European level is the key objective of
power grid management. Direct peer-to-peer trading with
aggregation to virtual power plants (VPP) is a viable solution and
could build on Blockchain technology.
A prerequisite for local P2P trading is the reduction of traded lot
sizes. In energy & commodity trading, standardised units are defined
according to size, quality and quantity. Standardised criteria and lot
sizes are necessary to overcome transaction costs in the current
market configuration. Actors are not able to sell on wholesale power
markets if the offer does not match the standardised criteria.

They are required by third-party intermediaries (brokers, banks) to

draft contracts. Thus, commodity traders are de facto big clients or
specialists. Blockchain is able to reduce transaction costs through
standardisation via smart contracts and the automatic execution of
orders. Transaction costs decrease dramatically, allowing smaller lot
sizes and bypassing intermediaries. In fact, one application of
Blockchain technology is in the distributed generation of renewable
energy using smart meters to track electricity use.

In this setting, “prosumers” not only consume commodities but also

dispose of generation capacity in the form of solar systems, small-
scale wind turbines or CHP plants. Blockchain technology
strengthens the market role of individual consumers and producers.
It enables prosumers to buy and sell energy directly – manually or via
automation – with a high degree of autonomy.

© Velmie, 2018

Aggregation of Microgrids to Virtual Power Plants

The term virtual power plant refers to clusters of electricity

generators, loads and storage systems that are pooled in an
intelligent manner and controlled jointly. The VPP proper represents
a central platform from which dispersed assets can be monitored
and controlled remotely. As VPP fleets are an aggregation of various
asset types and energy sources, they provide a certain level of
flexibility, allowing VPP operators to respond to market and price
changes within very short time frames.

In order to be able to participate in energy exchange,

plant operators have to produce forecasts so as to
minimise fluctuations. The complexity involved in
producing forecasts varies for each type of
generation facility; deriving forecasts for wind and
solar power output is a more complex task than for
controllable power plants like gas-fired power plants.
If a plant operator fails to forecast its output
accurately, it will incur imbalance charges. Plant
operators who can provide accurate forecasts can
benefit from higher revenues.

If controlled intelligently, VPPs aggregating widely dispersed and

strategically clustered assets can be used to optimise power flows,
thus serving as a power flow optimisation tool complementing
network development. Even today power flows can be optimised
with the help of renewable power generation facilities, for example
by aggregating wind turbines and controlling them jointly. In this way
VPPs can contribute to compensating for and bridging insufficient
network development.

© Velmie, 2018

A central actor could deploy Blockchain solution that automatically
integrates local information and optimises local grids. The local
grids are then aggregated to virtual platforms, providing stable
power capacity at low cost. This aggregation can include multiple
actors and have a central player or only one player could deploy it
for several distributed grids.

In the past, the organisation and management of VPPs of different

sizes was complex and costly. Blockchain technology has the
potential to make this process more efficient. On a lower level the
VPPs can – based on smart contracts – optimise themselves to a
certain degree, and if the balance of the current optimisation level is
not sufficient, then optimisation against the next higher level (e.g.
distribution grid) can be done via Blockchain very efficiently as well.

Examples for Local Trading Between Small Consumers and Prosumers

via Blockchain

Ponton developed a simulation of a local energy market based on

EPEX SPOT next-hour prices. This price curve is used to drive the
behaviour of participating batteries and an electrolyser. For the
electrolyser, Ponton developed a trading strategy with two goals:
consume 1 MWh within the simulated runtime of 24 hours and buy
hourly chunks of electricity, depending on the actual head-hour
market price.

The system uses an agent-based architecture connecting the

devices as market participants to the local marketplace. Each agent
is controlled by an individual behaviour – acting as a consumer, a
generator or both. The marketplace itself was built based on
Blockchain technology.

© Velmie, 2018

Asset Tracking, Bill of Lading, Transfer of Title

In the logistics chain all parties require continual consensus with

other parties. These actors usually use completely different
information tracking systems, leading to significant challenges for
the optimisation of the shipment process. The key challenges
Stratum identifies are sharing information between systems,
unsynchronised payments and deliveries, and auditing.

Currently, each party in the supply chain purchases goods, adds

value and sells these goods to the next actor in the chain. The
related transfers of ownership are often still recorded on paper and
fraud remains a persistent risk. Blockchain solution for the tracking
of physical commodities along the supply chain addresses the key
challenges and can reduce costs significantly.

Financialisation of Commodities

Physical trading between a buyer and seller in different countries is

costly, prone to error and involves a financial intermediary to
process the transaction. Commonly, letters of credit (LC) with
security and guarantees from banks are used for these transactions.

Making use of Blockchain technology tackles the

disadvantages while maintaining the security LCs
provide. The typical smart-contract application in
goods trading could be designed as follows: via his
node, the selling party receives a payment
confirmation that will take place later, once a set of
conditions is met. On the physical side, goods are
tagged with QR codes that are linked to the smart
contract. Upon arrival of the goods, the payment is

© Velmie, 2018

automatically triggered through the execution of the
contract.

The QR code/smart-contract solution is an example of how

Blockchain can improve the traceability of physical commodities.
Today only the front end of commodities trading has been
financialised, in the form of electronic trading. With blockchain, the
infrastructure could be financialised as well.

Fewer Intermediaries Through Immutable Records and Reconciliation

Reporting

Blockchain technology is increasingly being seen as a commercial

tool for transparency, visibility and security in numerous sectors. It
could hence play the role of clearinghouses and brokers. The
technology inherently and automatically provides all the confidence
needed. In over the counter (OTC) energy & commodity trading,
both counterparties confirm the deal details in order to minimise the
risk of misunderstandings or errors. This process of “confirmation
matching” is traditionally performed via fax or electronically at each
commodity trader’s back office.

According to Ponton, Blockchain could be used to completely

automate this process. With Blockchain technology, the exchange of
trade confirmations could be done on a peer-to-peer basis, i.e.,
directly between the counterparties without any middleman. OTC
commodity derivative trading in particular could be a quick win for
blockchain: OTC commodity derivatives have fewer clearing
requirements and, overall, the smaller market size could favour a
smart-contract rollout.

Ponton has launched its own Blockchain platform, Enerchain.

Enerchain is a platform for peer-to-peer trading in the wholesale
energy market. The software allows traders to anonymously send
orders to a decentralised order book, which can also be used by

© Velmie, 2018

other organisations. Thanks to this technology, Enerchain does not
require a central authority. To date, 23 European energy suppliers
and traders have joined the Enerchain consortium.

Developments and Outlook

As of now, Blockchain offers an opportunity for large utilities and

commodity traders. They could individually or in consortia move to
Blockchain solutions, reducing transaction costs for their processes
and maintaining their current position. One example of this
development is the newly founded Energy Web Foundation. Another
example is Poton’s Enerchain project, where European utilities seek
to create a standard for Blockchain technology in the energy sector.

A less known application of Blockchain technology are business

processes. These processes are based on a case-by-case analysis
of business processes with the identification of pain points that can
be tackled with Blockchain solutions. This approach can be applied
in the very short term, aiming at increasing process efficiency and
increasing automation.

The real potential of Blockchain technology

unleashes with the Internet of things (IoT). In an IoT
environment machines communicate directly without
any human interaction. This machine to machine
(M2M) communication could be managed with
blockchain(s), leveraging its benefits, such as
immutability, speed and automatisation. It will be
interesting to see, how these will create even more
use cases in future.

© Velmie, 2018

 Blockchain in Logistics
Achieving excellence in logistics involves working collaboratively with
others to optimize the flow of physical goods as well as the complex
flow of information and financial transactions (see the figure above).
But today there is a significant amount of trapped value in logistics,
largely stemming from the fragmented and competitive nature of the
logistics industry. For example, in the US alone, it is estimated that
there are over 500,000 individual trucking companies. With such a
huge number of stakeholders involved in the supply chain, this often
creates low transparency, unstandardized processes, data silos and
diverse levels of technology adoption.

Many parts of the logistics value chain are also bound to manual
processes mandated by regulatory authorities. For example,
companies must oftentimes rely on manual data entry and paper-
based documentation to adhere to customs processes. All this
makes it difficult to track the provenance of goods and the status of
shipments as they move along the supply chain, causing friction in
global trade. Blockchain can potentially help to overcome these
frictions in logistics and realize substantial gains in logistics process
efficiency. This technology can also enable data transparency and
access among relevant supply chain stakeholders, creating a single
source of truth. In addition, the trust that is required between
stakeholders to share information is enhanced by the intrinsic
security mechanisms of Blockchain technology.

Furthermore, Blockchain can achieve cost savings by powering

leaner, more automated, and error-free processes. As well as
adding visibility and predictability to logistics operations, it can
accelerate the physical flow of goods. Provenance tracking of goods
can enable responsible and sustainable supply chains at scale and
help to tackle product counterfeiting. Additionally, Blockchain-based

© Velmie, 2018

solutions offer potential for new logistics services and more
innovative business models.

Faster and Leaner Logistics in Global Trade

Logistics is often considered the lifeblood of the modern world, with

an estimated 90% of world trade carried out by the international
shipping industry every year. But the logistics behind global trade is
highly complex as it involves many parties often with conflicting
interests and priorities as well as the use of different systems to
track shipments. Therefore, achieving new efficiencies in trade
logistics is likely to have significant impact on the global economy.
According to one estimate from the World Economic Forum,
reducing supply chain barriers to trade could increase global gross
domestic product (GDP) by nearly 5% and global trade by 15%.

Blockchain technology can help alleviate many of the frictions in

global trade logistics including procurement, transportation
management, track and trace, customs collaboration, and trade
finance.

With over 50,000 merchant ships involved in the global shipping

industry and multiple customs authorities regulating the passage of
freight, a major area of focus for efficiency gains is ocean freight.
Blockchain technology has huge potential to optimize the cost as
well as time associated with trade documentation and administrative
processing for ocean freight shipments. One example that highlights
the complexities behind ocean freight today is the estimate that a
simple shipment of refrigerated goods from East Africa to Europe
can go through nearly 30 people and organizations, with more than
200 different interactions and communications among these parties.

To unlock efficiency in ocean freight, Maersk and IBM have started a

venture to establish a global Blockchain-based system for digitizing
trade workflows and end-to-end shipment tracking (see the

© Velmie, 2018

following figure). The system allows each stakeholder in the supply
chain to view the progress of goods through the supply chain,
understanding where a container is in transit.

Stakeholders can also see the status of customs documents, and

can view bills of lading and other data. Blockchain technology
ensures secure data exchange and a tamper-proof repository for
this documentation. The two companies expect this solution to track
tens of millions of shipping containers annually. It has the potential
to significantly reduce delays and fraud, which could lead to billions
of dollars in savings in the logistics industry.

Ocean carrier company ZIM has conducted a pilot to digitize the

actual bill of lading, often hailed as a ‘holy grail’ application in
logistics. The bill of lading is one of the most important documents
in ocean shipping, and it acts as a receipt and a contract for the
goods being shipped. The information stored on a bill of lading is
critical as it contains all necessary details such as the shipment
description, quantity and destination, as well as how the goods must
be handled and billed. During the trial of Blockchain-based system
developed by Wave, ZIM and pilot participants issued, transferred,
and received original electronic documents successfully through the
decentralized network.

The containers, shipped from China to Canada, were delivered to

the importers (i.e., consignees) without a problem. Although still in
pilot phase, industry adoption of a digital bill of lading would be
significant. It could greatly support supply chains in reducing costs,
enabling error-free documentation and fast transfer of original
documents.

Accenture is developing Blockchain-based system also focused on

replacing the traditional bill of lading as well as facilitating a single
source of truth for all supply chain stakeholders for freight inquiries
up to issuance of trade documents. Here, a decentralized network
connects all parties in the supply chain and enables direct

© Velmie, 2018

communication, eliminating the need to go through central entities
and rely on intermediaries. According to Adriana Diener, Global
Freight & Logistics Lead at Accenture, the proven value of this
project is surpassing expectations: “Using Blockchain to replace the
traditional bill of lading documentation to ship goods will drive
millions of dollars in process efficiency and operational cost
reduction benefits across the supply chain for multiple parties in the
trade ecosystem including shippers, consignees, carriers,
forwarders, ports, customs agencies, banks, and insurance
companies”.

Improving Transparency and Traceability in Supply Chains

Many projects are underway using Blockchain technology to improve

supply chain transparency and monitor provenance. These initiatives
amass data about how goods are made, where they come from,
and how they are managed; this information is stored in the
Blockchain-based system. This means that the data becomes
permanent and easily shared, giving supply chain players more
comprehensive track-and-trace capabilities than ever before.
Companies can use this information to provide proof of legitimacy
for products in pharmaceutical shipments, for example, and proof of
authenticity for luxury goods. These initiatives also deliver consumer
benefits – people can find out more about the products they are
buying, for example, whether a product has been ethically sourced,
is an original item, and has been preserved in the correct conditions.

One key application is the use of Blockchain technology to combat a

major challenge in the world today: the counterfeiting of drugs and
false medication. According to Interpol, around 1 million people
each year die from counterfeit drugs, 50% of pharmaceutical
products sold through rogue websites are considered fake, and up
to 30% of pharmaceutical products sold in emerging markets are
counterfeit. To answer this challenge, DHL and Accenture are driving
Blockchain-based serialization project providing sophisticated track-

© Velmie, 2018

and-trace capabilities to the pharmaceutical industry (see the
following figure).

Pharmaceutical serialization is the process of assigning a unique

identity (e.g., a serial number) to each sealable unit, which is then
linked to critical information about the product’s origin, batch
number, and expiration date. Serialization effectively enables a unit
to be tracked at virtually any moment, and traced to its location at
any stage of its lifecycle. A key serialization challenge is maintaining
traceability and transparency especially when these units are
repackaged or aggregated from unit to case to pallet for logistics
purposes and then disaggregated back down to unit level for
consumption.

The DHL /Accenture proof-of-concept was established to overcome

this and other challenges by demonstrating the effectiveness of
Blockchain technology in product verification. The aim is to show
that pharmaceutical products have come from legitimate
manufacturers, are not counterfeit, and have been correctly handled
throughout their journey from origin to consumer. Most importantly,
this initiative proves how end customers can verify the legitimacy
and integrity of pharmaceutical products, especially compliance with
handling requirements. This not only reassures the end customer at
the point of purchase that their medicines are genuine and in perfect
condition, but has potentially life-saving implications.

To achieve this, the partners have established Blockchain-based

track-and-trace serialization prototype comprising a global network
of nodes across six geographies. The system comprehensively
documents each step that a pharmaceutical product takes on its
way to the store shelf and eventually the consumer (see the figure on
next page). The prototype was a lab performance simulation that
demonstrated how Blockchain technology could handle volumes of
more than 7 billion unique pharmaceutical serial numbers and over
1,500 transactions per second.

© Velmie, 2018

The project illustrated how Blockchain can be used to capture all
logistics activities relating to an item of medication – from
production to purchase – and ensure this information is made
secure, transparent, and immediately available. “Our proof of
concept demonstrated the opportunities blockchain presents in the
fight against counterfeit pharmaceutical goods. Together with our
partners we are actively refining the solution as well as working with
key industry stakeholders to operationalize the concept” states Keith
Turner, CIO Chief Development Office at DHL Supply Chain.

In the consumer goods and retail industry, companies like Unilever

and Walmart are exploring the use of Blockchain technology to
improve supply chain transparency and to track provenance.
Walmart is focusing specifically on food tracking, traceability, and
safety.

Together with partners, Walmart has conducted Blockchain test

designed to trace the origin and care of food products such as pork
from China and mangoes from Mexico. To begin with, this initiative
documented the producer of each specified food product so that
Walmart can easily address any case of contamination, should this
arise. Secondly, the test put mechanisms in place to identify and
rectify the improper care of food throughout the journey from farm to
store. For example, since meat shipments must not rise above a
certain temperature, the test took temperature data from sensors
attached to the food products and committed this data to the
Blockchain-based system. From there, automated quality assurance
processes notified relevant parties in the event of suboptimal
transport conditions. Since launching this test, Walmart has also
announced the creation of Blockchain Food Safety Alliance, an
extensive partnership to apply tracking, traceability, and safety
benefits to food supply chains in China.

Moving forward, a key requirement for track-and-trace applications

will be to adopt more secure and intelligent forms of digital identity
for each physical product – moving from the provision of a passive

© Velmie, 2018

barcode or serial number to, for example, enabling interactivity with
the use of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors. Smart devices can be
securely tied to or embedded in the physical product to
autonomously record and transmit data about item condition
including temperature variation, to ensure product integrity, as well
as any evidence of product tampering.

Automating Commercial Processes in Logistics with Smart Contracts

Current industry estimates indicate that 10% of all freight invoices

contain inaccurate data which leads to disputes as well as many
other process inefficiencies in the logistics industry. This problem is
so prevalent that in the oil and energy industry alone, Accenture
expects that at least 5% in annual freight spend could be reduced
through improved invoice accuracy and reduction of overpayments.

Blockchain has the significant potential to increase

efficiency along the entire logistics and settlement
process including trade finance and help to resolve
disputes in the logistics industry. As digitized
documents and real-time shipment data become
embedded in Blockchain-based systems, this
information can be used to enable smart contracts.
These contracts can automate commercial
processes the moment that agreed conditions are
met.

One of the first startups to pursue such smart contract applications

in the logistics industry is ShipChain. ShipChain is an early-stage
company which has designed a comprehensive Blockchain-based
system to track and trace a product from the moment it leaves the
factory to final delivery at the customer's doorstep. The system is

© Velmie, 2018

designed to encompass all methods of freight and there are plans to
include an open API architecture that can integrate with existing
freight management software. All relevant supply chain information
is recorded in an immutable Blockchain-based database that can
execute smart contracts once the conditions have been met (for
example, as soon as the driver transmits confirmation of successful
delivery). A key element to automating the settlement process is
through ShipChain's digital currency called "SHIP tokens".
Participants of ShipChain's platform purchase these tokens in order
to pay for freight and settle transactions on the platform.

In this use case, Blockchain in combination with the Internet of

Things (IoT) in the logistics industry will enable even smarter logistics
contracts in future. For example, on delivery a connected pallet will
be able to automatically transmit confirmation and the time of
delivery as well as the condition of the goods to the Blockchain-
based system. The system can then automatically verify the delivery,
check whether the goods were delivered as per agreed conditions
(e.g., temperature, humidity, tilt) and release correct payments to
the appropriate parties, greatly increasing efficiency as well as
integrity.

Blockchain can further be used in the context of IoT to automate

machine-to-machine payments (e.g., connected machines
negotiating and executing price based on the logistics activities
performed).

Another example of smart contracts in the logistics industry is the

digitization of letters of credit (L/C) in order to accelerate the
preparation and execution of a standard paper-based L/C – a
process which currently tends to take from a few days to a few
weeks. The Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BofAML), HSBC and the
Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) have
developed a prototype to bring the paper-intensive L/C process onto
Blockchain. The system essentially enables the sharing of
information between exporters, importers and their respective banks

© Velmie, 2018

on a secure Blockchain-based platform. This allows trade deals to
be executed automatically through a series of digital smart
contracts. In the trial, each of the four parties involved in an L/C
transaction could visualize data in real time on a mobile tablet and
see the next actions to be performed.

In a joint statement, the consortium partners state that the proof of

concept shows potential to streamline the manual processing of
import/export documentation, improve security by reducing errors,
increase convenience for all parties through mobile interaction and
make companies’ working capital more predictable. The partners
now plan to conduct further testing of the concept’s commercial
application with selected partners, such as companies and shippers.

Startups are also working in this space with one example being
Libelli. This company is developing a solution to essentially act as
an escrow agent between any seller and any buyer to create a smart
contract, bypassing the need for buyers and sellers to engage banks
and eliminating the paperwork traditionally associated with L/C. The
company aims to provide transparency to all stakeholders during the
process, and claims that the automation of this commercial process
reduces L/C time-to-execution down to a few minutes, with costs
ten times lower than currently charged by banks.

Other functions that could be automated include outsourced

transportation management, normative compliance, route planning,
delivery scheduling, fleet management, freight forwarding, and
connectivity with business partners.

© Velmie, 2018

Copyright © 2018 Velmie, LLC. All rights reserved.

Velmie is a leading provider of Blockchain solutions. This document

is intended for general informational purposes only, does not take
into account the reader’s specific circumstances, and may not
reflect the most current developments. Velmie disclaims, to the
fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any and all liability for the
accuracy and completeness of the information in this document and
for any acts or omissions made based on such information. Velmie
does not provide legal, regulatory, audit, or tax advice. Readers are
responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel or
other licensed professionals.

For more information, visit Velmie.com

© Velmie, 2018