Marten Risius：：在我看来，金融服务，供应链提供商和政府机构等似乎都正在探索如何使用区块链来补充完善其服务，而不是被其取代。我们更有可能会看到基于区块链的服务补充当前的业务形式，而不是取代它。 特别是关于电子商务：正如引言中所提到的，如果我们谈论数字商品的转让，我们可能会看到区块链带来相当大的改变。 但就实物产品的数字价值交易而言，这似乎不是一个完美的区块链应用场景。
Marten Risius：：我还没有看到金融科技对金融服务业的的巨大影响。毋庸置疑，已经有一些金融科技公司取得了相当大的成功，但大多数金融科技公司最终（甚至可能只是为了）被金融业的老牌企业收购。与许多互联网初创公司类似，金融科技能够为客户提供价值，但却无法为公司提供价值。简单来说，这意味着他们提供便利的服务，但人们不愿意为此付费。因此，在大多数情况下，它们最终会被集成到现有系统中，要么就会消失。我个人不记得有任何一家银行因为它被金融科技创业公司取代而破产。 同样，我认为这种趋势将同样发生在以区块链为基础的金融科技上。
Marten Risius：：我是加密货币的价值的坚信者，但是前面提到的有关可信接口的问题仍有待解决。 然而，随着我们越来越多地用电子方式进行交易，我们也可能看到基于加密货币的交易增加。至少我会欢迎这一变化。 比特币目前地位显著，大多数货币都与之相关，但我无法判断是比特币还是其他加密货币会是未来的选择。
Up front I would like to stress that the entire field of blockchain is rapidly developing。 There is a lot of speculation and only very few live applications。 Two years ago, everybody thought blockchain would render the financial services industry obsolete。 Banks outdid each other by pushing news releases on blockchain developments and projects before actually working on anything。 Nowadays, we see more development in the supply chain industry and banking seems out of fashion。 So we need to remind us of some basic ideas。
First of all, blockchain technologies are not necessarily a good replacement for existing databases. So if you are looking for a database you may want to consider the existing solutions. Blockchain technologies can provide the foundation for socio-economic changes, not for alternative forms of storing data.
From my perspective, the full potential of blockchain bears fruit when we consider the transfer of digital goods. If we combine blockchain technologies with the transfer of physical goods, we introduce trusted interface points that can be manipulated. For example, the often cited case of using blockchain technologies to guarantee that diamonds are not procured from warlords can only work if the data provided to the blockchain (for example from the companies who mine the diamonds) can be trusted. How can that be guaranteed? Most often it cannot be guaranteed. And if you use any type of third parties such as governmental agencies or other technologies (RFID chips, GPS signals) they can be manipulated as well. So we commonly need to understand that while it is difficult to manipulate data after it is added to the blockchain, data can still be manipulated before it is added to the blockchain. Similar to the traditional "Garbage in, garbage out" challenge that information systems face.
JRJ： What changes do you think will take place in business services in the following five years?What impact do you think the blockchain technology has on e-commerce?
Marten Risius： To me it seems that businesses such as financial services, supply chain providers, and governmental agencies are exploring how to use blockchain to complement their services instead of being replaced by it. To me it seems likely that we will see blockchain based services complementing current forms of business instead of replacing it. Regarding E-Commerce in particular: As mentioned in the introduction, if we are talking about the transfer of digital goods, we might see considerable effects of blockchain. But regarding the exchange of digital value for physical products, this seems not like a perfect blockchain use case.
JRJ： How does Fintech based on blockchain technology affect the financial industry? How far do you think we are from the large-scale application of blockchain technology in the financial industry?
Marten Risius： I haven't seen the big impact that Fintech was assumed to have on financial services yet. There are certainly some Fintech companies with considerable success but the majority of Fintechs ended up (or maybe even just aimed for) being bought up by established players in the financial industry. Fintechs, similarly to a lot of internet startups, are capable of providing value to the customer but don't provide value to the firm. In simple terms it means that they offer a convenient service, but people are not willing to pay for it. So for the most part they end up being integrated into existing systems or they disappear. I personally cannot recall a single bank going out of business, because it was replaced by a Fintech startup. Simiarly, I would expect this trend to continue with blockchain based Fintechs.
Marten Risius： Currently, the main use case I see for blockchain based services are initial coin offerings (ICOs). I would summarize them in simple terms as a combination of crowd funding, IPOs, and venture capitalism. Unfortunately, they have a poor reputation due to a few fraudulent ICOs and the low percentage of actually developed applications. But conceptually ICOs seems like a viable use case to me with great opportunities to democratize the funding and investment system.
JRJ： How do they influence the financial system? Will they change the status of present currency?
Marten Risius： I am a firm believer in the value of cryptocurrencies. However, the aforementioned aspect of the trusted interfaces remains to be solved. As we increasingly conduct transactions electronically, however, we may also see an increase in cryptocurrency based exchanges. I would welcome that at least. Bitcoin has a prominent status right now and most currencies are linked to it. But I am not able to suggest whether Bitcoin is the future or another cryptocurrency.
JRJ： Is there a security risk in the storage of assets and information on the blockchain? What solutions are currently available for security issues?
Marten Risius： A lot of people are discussing the role of cryptocurrencies on the dark web, for example. I cannot say wether illegal activities have increased since the appearance of blockchain based solutions. Therefore, I will not participate in these speculations.
Marten Risius： What I can say, however, is that blockchain technologies have some privacy risks. Blockchain transactions typically require asymmetric encryption meaning you have a secure private key that nobody should ever get access to and a public key that you can share for transactions. This is not a novel concept. In the past, when PGP encryption was introduced for e-mails, for example, people did not understand the concept and willingly shared their private key. This meant that principally anyone could send out verified e-mails in their name. That was a big security risk. This went on for decades. If you are interested, there is a whole series of academic articles on this subject starting with "Why Johnny Can't Encrypt" that started - I believe - in 1999 with articles still coming out on "Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt" today. If you consider now that people might store their health data, financial data or governmental data on a blockchain and start sharing their private key, it could be desastrous. And even if people don't share their private key, they need to set proper passwords for their wallets. But considering that barely anyone uses a proper password manager tool to create safe passwords, there are more security risks. Thus, I see great risks if you simply provide people with this technology without properly educating them on how to securely use them.
JRJ： Does the digital identity of the blockchain bring difficulties for regulation? What do you think of the regulation in Blockchain Era?
Marten Risius： I perceive most of the blockchain community to be sceptical of regulation. And - from my perspective - there are good reasons for it. For example, an essential benefit of ICOs is that they can be quickly executed without much regulation. This attracts investors and helps a young technology grow and mature. At the same time, however, a lot of people lost a lot of money because of this wild west mentality and opportunity. Reasonable regulation seems difficult at this point, because policy makers commonly understand very little about the technology and are heavily influenced by lobbyists of the established industries. At the same time, I see that some regulation would be beneficial to make blockchain technologies attractive for the general public. Thus, I personally would appreciate some light regulation that allows rapid developments. What that should specifically look like is beyond me but I would love to participate in those discussions. For now, I think it is important to have some technical industry standards as they are currently developed. My urge is not to overregulate before we see where this technology is headed. The people who loose money through these technologies are probably risk affine and have made a lot of money through that behavior already anyhow. So I would advocate for less regulation at this point and then take informed approaches as we learn about the risks.