Paritosh and Pakhi blame Meenu for having an affair with Sagar.Leela feels betrayed, and Vanraj dreams about Meenu’s confession.Anupama encourages Meenu to fight back against ragging.Meenu is scared to tell Vanraj about the incident.Vanraj decides to bring Meenu back home, shocking her.Vanraj warns Meenu not to make bad decisions.Meenu is given an ultimatum to stay away from Anupama and Sagar.Anupama learns about Anuj’s close call.
Anupama Written Update Today (11 August 2024)
Paritosh and Pakhi Blame Meenu
Paritosh and Pakhi accuse Meenu of having an affair with Sagar. This shocks Leela. Titu tries to prevent Dimple from sharing a video of Meenu, but Pakhi reveals that Vanraj is already aware of the video. Kinjal, hearing the commotion, asks what’s happening.
Paritosh informs her about Meenu and Sagar, leaving Leela feeling betrayed. Kinjal suggests that Leela let Meenu explain her side of the story. Meanwhile, Vanraj dreams of Meenu confessing her love for Sagar.
In reality, Leela urges Vanraj to take action, prompting him to rush out of the house with Paritosh following. Kinjal notes that Vanraj is upset.
Anupama Supports Meenu
Anupama encourages Meenu after she admits to being scared due to ragging. Anupama advises her to fight back, though Meenu remains tense. Bala helps Sagar, acknowledging that Sagar fighting alone isn’t ideal.
Sagar worries about Vanraj’s reaction, especially since he would have helped any girl, not just Meenu. Bala mentions filing an FIR.
Meenu Worries About Vanraj
Anupama urges Meenu to tell Vanraj about the raging incident, but Meenu is worried about his reaction. Anupama insists that if Meenu doesn’t speak up, she will. Vanraj decides to bring Meenu back home, shocking her when she sees him.
Leela worries about Dolly, Meenu, and Sanjay, but Kinjal tries to comfort her. Dimple stirs up trouble, causing Titu to become angry.
Vanraj’s Response to Meenu
Vanraj checks on Meenu, asking if she’s unwell. Anupama is stressed, thinking Vanraj hasn’t reacted. Paritosh and Pakhi observe that Vanraj isn’t angry with Meenu. Meenu then reveals to the Shahs about the ragging incident, expressing gratitude to Sagar for helping her.
Vanraj decides to send Meenu back to the USA, but Meenu pleads with him not to.
Anupama’s Business Worries
As Anupama packs food, Nandita expresses concern about Indra. Anupama assumes Indra might be busy with her family. Nandita then comments that their catering business isn’t growing, but Anupama remains hopeful. Nandita compliments Anupama.
Vanraj’s Warning to Meenu
Vanraj forbids Meenu from touching his feet, warning her not to make any decisions that could ruin her life like Pakhi and Paritosh did. Meenu assures Vanraj of her respect for him. Sagar, on the other hand, decides to distance himself from the Shahs.
Vanraj’s Ultimatum
Vanraj instructs Meenu to stay away from Anupama and Sagar. He gives her an ultimatum: either follow his orders or return to the USA. Meenu agrees to follow his rules. Pakhi and Paritosh also warn Meenu, while Kinjal comforts her.
Anupama Learns of Anuj’s Close Call
Anupama finds out that Anuj narrowly avoided a mishap. Bala advises her to find Aadya to ensure Anuj’s safety.
Precap: Anupama takes Yashdeep’s help to find Aadya. Aadya tries to connect the call. She calls out Anupama.
Ruhi manipulates situations to distance Rohit and Abhira.Dadi and Sanjay plot to prevent Abhira from gaining control.Armaan apologizes to Abhira, while Ruhi plays the victim.Dadi decides to make Rohit the head of the Poddar firm.Rohit sets a condition: he will lead the firm only if Armaan and Abhira get married.The family is divided over the proposed marriage.Manisha is confident that Dadi will eventually agree, but Kajal is worried.
YRKKH Written Update 10 August 2024
Ruhi’s Manipulation
The episode begins with Ruhi treating her wound, thinking her plan will work. She believes that if Armaan feels sorry for her, he will argue with Rohit and Abhira. This will create distance between the couple, weaken their love, and ultimately lead to the end of Rohit and her marriage.
Ruhi hopes to marry Armaan, thinking that by making Abhira love everything, she will win Armaan over. Ruhi plans to make Abhira leave, vowing that she will shed tears of joy once her plan succeeds.
Dadi’s Concern and Sanjay’s Plot
In the morning, Dadi disagrees with a decision. Sanjay warns that Armaan has become Abhira’s puppet, and if they don’t act, Abhira will take control. He urges Dadi to share this concern with the family.
Armaan apologizes to Abhira, but she scolds him, noting his mood swings. After he leaves, Ruhi arrives, and Abhira threatens to expose her. Ruhi denies any wrongdoing and asks Abhira to stop dragging her into this.
As Armaan appears, Ruhi pretends to be hurt, gaining his sympathy. Abhira points out Ruhi’s mistake, but Ruhi asks to be left alone.
Dadi’s Decision
Dadi arrives and is glad to see Ruhi. Vidya and others gather as Dadi announces a significant decision. Abhira stands by Armaan, while Sanjay signals his approval to Dadi. Dadi reveals her wish for Rohit to lead the Poddar firm.
Madhav objects, saying that as the elder son, Armaan should have that right. Armaan supports Rohit, congratulating him, while Sanjay privately plots to let Rohit fail so he can take over the firm. Manoj doubts Rohit’s ability, but Dadi insists he can manage.
Rohit’s Condition
Rohit, however, doesn’t want the position and suggests Armaan should take it. Dadi, adamant about keeping the firm within the family, pressures Rohit. Sanjay offers to guide Rohit, but Rohit sets a condition: he will only accept if the family agrees to marry off Armaan and Abhira soon.
Dadi is shocked at the idea of Abhira becoming her daughter-in-law and refuses. Rohit stands firm, stating he won’t lead the firm without their marriage. Vidya and the children plead with Dadi, but she remains undecided, saying she will think about it.
Family Reactions
Elsewhere, Surekha finds it strange that Rohit asked Kaveri to arrange Armaan and Abhira’s marriage. Swarna shares that Vidya invited them to Teej, but they decided not to attend, fearing it would upset Ruhi.
Manish, meanwhile, feels a bond with Abhira. Ruhi, frustrated, throws things in anger. Dadi scolds Kiara and worries that Abhira will ruin the household if she marries into the family.
Ruhi laments that Rohit has ruined her plans and realizes Dadi will never accept the marriage condition. Meanwhile, Manisha gifts Abhira a necklace, insisting it’s a token of her love.
Abhira hesitates, pointing out that Dadi hasn’t agreed to the marriage yet. Manisha, confident, believes Rohit’s influence will sway Dadi.
The Uncertainty of Marriage
Madhav reassures Abhira, saying she will live with the family now, while Charu doubts Dadi’s agreement. Manisha remains determined, even vowing to take a vow of silence if the marriage doesn’t happen.
Kajal, worried, decides to talk to her mother, fearing the marriage might be a mistake. The family takes a selfie, while Armaan leaves.
Vanraj criticizes Toshu and Pakhi for not being responsible.Anuj struggles with the loss of Aadhya and leaves the house.Meenu is bullied by seniors at the hospital.Sagar defends Meenu from bullies, but the incident is recorded.Vanraj hides the truth about money from Toshu and Pakhi.Meenu doesn’t want to tell her uncle about the raging incident.Pakhi shows Vanraj a misleading video of Meenu and Sagar.
Anupama Written Update 10 August 2024
Vanraj’s Frustration with Family
Vanraj complains about a new disturbance, saying the people from Asha Bhavan are causing trouble with their flute. Pakhi is annoyed because she can’t sleep during the day, but Baa remarks that their noise at night is worse.
Toshu smiles, and Pakhi questions why Toshu is there instead of watching Meenu. They argue about who should take care of Meenu, and Vanraj gets angry, telling them to pack their bags and leave.
Toshu apologizes for not watching Meenu properly, but Vanraj criticizes them, saying he doesn’t want Meenu to fall in love like they did. He advises Pakhi to focus on her fitness if she can’t handle her daughter.
Anuj’s Emotional Struggle
Anuj, overwhelmed with emotion, talks to Aadhya, expressing disbelief that she’s alive. He doesn’t want to stay in the house and leaves, despite Anupama praying for his strength. Anuj wonders how he will live without Aadhya, while Bala and Nandita search for him. Anupama continues to pray for a solution.
Meenu’s Encounter with Bullies
Meenu arrives at the hospital, and Sagar advises her to get an injection. As she walks towards the hospital, senior boys surround her and start teasing her. She tries to leave, but they block her way.
Meanwhile, Pakhi and Toshu discuss how nobody cares about them, and Pakhi says Meenu is not as innocent as she seems. Baa receives a courier for Vanraj, but Toshu takes it, reads it, and is shocked. Vanraj takes the envelope from Toshu.
Anuj’s Desperate Vision
Anuj imagines Aadhya calling him, but when he reaches out, she vanishes. Anuj, distressed, walks towards a junction box, saying he doesn’t want to live in a world without her. Anupama prays to bear the pain for Anuj but feels something is wrong when she senses an electric shock.
Sagar Defends Meenu
The senior boys demand Meenu’s name, and she threatens them with a stethoscope. Sagar returns to give her a charger and asks the boys to let her go. They tease him, but he remains calm until one of them slaps him. Sagar then defends himself and Meenu, standing up to the bullies.
Vanraj’s Secret and Toshu’s Discontent
Toshu questions Vanraj about hiding the full amount of money from them. Vanraj dismisses them, saying it’s his life and his rules. He criticizes them for wasting money and not taking responsibility, telling them they should be grateful for getting a penthouse.
Toshu and Pakhi are upset. Meanwhile, the boys tear Meenu’s sleeve, and Sagar gives her his uniform to wear, comforting her as people record the scene.
Meenu’s Decision and Anupama’s Advice
Vanraj regrets that Toshu saw the letter and worries about what to do next. Anupama asks Bala where Anuj is and fears the worst. Anuj returns, showing a toy keychain resembling Aadhya. Sagar arrives with Meenu, who hugs Anupama and explains about the ragging at college.
They filed a case, but Meenu doesn’t want to tell her uncle, fearing he will stop her from going out. Anupama advises her to be honest with him before anyone else does.
Pakhi Stirs Trouble
Pakhi shows Vanraj a video of Meenu hugging Sagar and adds drama, suggesting that Meenu is involved romantically with him under the guise of an internship.
On Wednesday this week, a judge formally ordered FTX and it’s sister company, Alameda Research, to pay $12.7 Billion USD to creditors, ending a 20-month-long lawsuit with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Full Story
For our final ever Web3 Daily news article (we’ll say a proper goodbye on Sunday), it feels fitting to write about FTX.
(The company that both made us and broke us in many ways – because people love reading about crazy news; but FTX also crippled the crypto industry along with the advertising budgets for many web3 companies).
On Wednesday this week, a judge formally ordered FTX and it’s sister company, Alameda Research, to pay $12.7 Billion USD to creditors, ending a 20-month-long lawsuit with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
The order also bans FTX and Alameda from trading digital assets and acting as intermediaries in the market.
(Nipping in the bud even the slightest chance of a comeback for the company).
How in the world can a bankrupt company pay $12.7B to creditors?
Well, when Sam Bankrun-Fraud was sentenced, he was forced to forfeit $11B in assets (and given 25 years in prison for seven counts of fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering).
Plus, Alameda and FTX had significant crypto holdings in tokens other than the FTT token (FTX’s native token which went to zero) like Solana, which, since the crash that they started, has mostly gone up in value.
For now, FTX and Alameda have filed for bankruptcy, with the full restructure being administered by Kroll – who have the fun job of figuring out what assets are still owned, and which creditors should get how much, and in what order.
Picture this: you go to buy something online from a British retailer…
And even though the site lists its prices in your local currency (USD), the final transaction is quietly made using their local currency (GBP).
You throw your laptop at the wall in anger and go to Twitter to complain.
The narrative doesn’t add up, right? But for some reason in crypto, that kind of currency tribalism is totally accepted.
It’s dumb! Which is why we love to see stuff like this:
Ethena Labs — the makers of the Ethereum-based USDe stablecoin that earns a whopping 12.3% yield per year when it’s staked? Yuh, they’re now integrating with Solana — bringing greater optionality to us as users.
It’s a smart move. Cause if you study some of the more enduring projects of the previous bull run (e.g. WalletConnect, Thirdweb, Magic Eden…)
You’ll notice they all play nice with other technologies.
WalletConnect and Magic Eden integrate with a range of wallets from a range of chains, while Thirdweb makes it easy for web2 companies to adopt web3 payments (see: Shopify).
The takeaway:
Multi-chain integrations don’t leech from other crypto projects, they let users make a choice and pick the technology that will serve them best.
As a result, the cream rises to the top and the overall crypto pie continues to grow.
Making your job as an investor that much easier.
Cause you no longer have to figure out who is forcing their (potentially sub-par) technology on people with back door partnerships and zealous tribalism…
The SEC is about to settle w/ Ripple, moving us one step closer to cut-n-dry regulatory acceptance in America, which will have the power to push the market up by trillions over the following decade.
Full Story
The XRP vs. SEC lawsuit is coming to an end!
But most of Crypto Twitter is treating it like their uncle that just finalized his divorce after years of being separated.
“Wait, I thought that you guys were long done already?”
It sure felt like it was over when the judge ruled the public sale of XRP tokens were not a securities violation — meaning the sale of most other crypto tokens would probably get the same treatment.
(A great thing for everyone’s portfolios, cause it keeps Garry Gensler’s war on crypto in a chokehold of legal precedence).
The final piece of the puzzle was settling the private sale of XRP tokens, which was seen as a crime. The BIG question was, what’d be the punishment?
Was XRP going to be…
Put up for adoption (sued out of existence).
Or lose their allowance for a few weeks (fined, but still allowed to exist).
Well, we now know it was the latter — Ripple’s paying a $125M settlement (pocket change for them).
Here’s what that means for you and your portfolio:
Whether or not you hold XRP, this adds further momentum to the shifting approach to crypto regulation in the US.
If any lawsuit was going to be a slam dunk in the SEC’s favor, it was this one.
For a solid four years, the impression was we were about to see a prime Jordan (the SEC) go up against a benched G-League wash out (Ripple).
But it turned out to be one of the famed 9000 shots that Jordan missed in his career.
And once we see cut-n-dry regulatory acceptance in America, it’ll have the power to push the market up by trillions over the following decade.
Former President & NDCs Presidential candidate for December polls, H.E. John Dramani Mahama
The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has exonerated former President John Mahama of any bribery and wrongdoing after its investigations into the Airbus SE scandal which begun in February 2020.
Briefing journalists on Thursday, August 8, 2024, the Special Prosecutor, Kissi Agyebeng said after its investigations, it could not establish any evidence to suggest that John Mahama or any public official received bribes from Airbus SE.
Consequently, the OSP found no evidentiary basis that suggest that Samuel Adam Foster also known as Samuel Adam Mahama, Philip Shun Middlemerth and Lean Sarah Davies acted as conduits of bribery between the employees of Airbus and Former President John Mahama or any other public official.
Also, the OSP found no evidentiary basis that suggest that Samuel Adam Mahama, Philip Shun Middlerts and Lean Sarah Davies received payments from Airbus with the intention of bribing former President John Dramani Mahama or any other public official.
Further, the OSP found no evidentiary basis that suggest that Former President John Mahama or any other public official was paid bribes by Samuel Adam Foster also known as Samuel Adam Mahama, Philip Shun Middlemerth and Lean Sarah Davies in respect of the purchase by the government of Ghana of Military transport aircraft from Airbus,” he noted.John Dramani Mahama, a former President and now flag bearer for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) was Vice President at the time the incident happened.
BACKGROUND SEARCH
A breakdown of the Airbus bribery scandal
Ghana bought three Military Airplanes – C295s – from Airbus. The nation received its first C295 in November 2011. The second aircraft was received in April 2012 and the third in November 2015.
John Dramani Mahama, a former President and now flag bearer for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) was Vice President at the time the incident happened.
The deals covering them were argued at the time to be in line with the 2009-2012 Strategic Plan of the Ghana Armed Forces.
All three purchases, approved by Ghana’s Parliament after heated disagreements on the floor, were roundly marketed by the government of the day as a drive to modernize Ghana’s Air Force.
Funding for the purchase of aircraft
Funding for the first two C295s came from a €60,034,636 loan facility from the Deutsche Bank S.A.E.
A further €11,750,000 million loan from the Fidelity Bank Ghana Limited was also approved by Parliament during the period for the acquisition of two DA42 MPP Guardian surveillance aircraft for the Ghana Airforce.
The House also approved a total loan sum of $105,370,177.09 from the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) for the purchase of an Embraer E190 jet for the country. The Embraer agreement was to cover related spare parts, relevant accessories as well as the construction of an aircraft hangar big enough to house three large aircraft.
Prior to the Parliamentary approval of the loan agreements, Minority Leader, Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu had slammed the deals as both questionable and non-transparent, adding that the contract sums had been padded by the government.
He famously tabled figures obtained from the internet to back his claims but was scorned for doing no more than relying on Google to come up with such serious claims of wrongdoing.
One of the C295s acquired under the deal supported United Nations-led missions in Mali. The rest were bought, as the Government explained at the time, to support strategic operations of the Ghana Air Force including surveillance of the country’s offshore oil production fields, border patrol, the training of pilots and internal transportation of troops.
In November 2014, then President John Mahama had announced that Ghana planned to acquire more Military equipment, including five Super Tucanos, Mi-17s and four Z-9s, for the Ghana Airforce.
At the time, Ghanaian troops were said to have relied heavily on civilian flights for their movements and needed military aircraft to correct this anomaly. Despite opposition criticisms, the government went ahead with the purchase agreements.
UK Court’s judgement
The recent judgement by England’s Crown Court in Southwark would appear to have now given a new life to earlier suspicions that the agreements covering the C295s especially were corrupt. The January 21, 2020 decision approved a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) between the Serious Fraud Office and Airbus SE, a subsidiary of Airbus, after investigations exposed massive bribery scandals involving the aircraft manufacturer in breach of the Bribery Act 2010.
English law allows the SFO to postpone prosecution of an organisation based on an agreement between the SFO and a company or companies suspected to have committed economic crimes.
Such an agreement – (DPA) – requires a seal of Judicial approval to become lawful and may even allow the offending institution to avoid prosecution entirely.
The court, in its decision on such applications, considers among other things, whether or not the DPA before it is in the public interest.
Also, the terms of the agreement must be fair, reasonable and proportionate.
In the present case, the court found that the DPA is in the public interest and that the terms agreed to meet the tests of fairness, reasonability and proportionality.
The court took the view that prosecuting Airbus now would among other things, lead to massive job losses and decimate the company’s performance on the stock market in the immediate to long term.
Independent estimates suggest Airbus could easily haemorrhage some £200 billion in the long term if it faced prosecution immediately.
The judgement stated that SFO investigations found that Airbus — which has since agreed to pay over £3 billion in fines — had engaged in schemes that involved bribing its way to lucrative contracts in countries such as Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Indonesia and Ghana.
French and US authorities have also found similar evidence of alleged bribery involving Airbus officials and or their agents in other countries, including Russia and China.
In the case of Ghana, the Judgement of the Crown Court highlights instances where Airbus officials, as part of a scheme to obtain and or maintain contracts with the government, either bribed or agreed to bribe intermediaries with close links to a high-ranking state official said to have influence over the country’s aircraft purchase plans between 2011 and 2015.
The court documents did not mention any names but the timeframe stated in the judgement covered some periods of the Mills-Mahama era.
The first agreement to pay bribes in Ghana was to involve some €5 million which was disguised as a Commission to an intermediary – “intermediary 5” – engaged by Airbus to promote its proposal to sell two C295 aircraft to Ghana.Eventually, due process tests exposed the dubious arrangements and no money was paid.
Eventually, due process tests exposed the dubious arrangements and no money was paid.
Subsequent approaches by Airbus succeeded, resulting in Ghana buying 3 C259 aircrafts through the multinational’s Spanish defence subsidiaries at separate times.
The deals were arranged through a number of intermediaries led by “intermediary 5”, said to be an unnamed relative of a powerful Ghanaian official who, at the relevant time, was in a decision-making position over the proposed aircraft purchase agreements.
However, after an internal investigation exposed the link between intermediary 5 and the unnamed high ranking government of Ghana official, a scheme was then hatched by the parties to route the transaction through a third party company of Spanish origin, which company had no previous dealings with Ghana.
The Spanish company was passed off as the facilitator of the proposed aircraft purchase agreements when in fact it was merely inserted into the arrangements to circumvent due diligence requirements in order to give the questionable transaction a clean bill of health. Upon conclusion of the deal with Ghana, under which two aircraft were initially sold, Airbus or its agents relied on false representations and documentation to pay bribe amounts close to €4 million to the Spanish third party company which in turn funnelled the payments to intermediary 5.
The payments were disguised as commission on the contract amount. The Spanish third party company pulled out of a subsequent deal that handed Ghana her third C259 aircraft. This was after Airbus had engaged an external counsel to conduct due diligence on it. Intermediary 5’s subsequent claim that Airbus owed him some €1.6 million under the deal covering the third C295 was not honoured.
The DPA does not mean the Airbus and its officials are immune from prosecution for the alleged crimes.
Under English law, the SFO is entitled to, in due course, prosecute Airbus if it is satisfied that the company failed to comply with the terms of the DPA approved by the Court.
Indeed, ongoing investigations mean that while the SFO might, in the light of Airbus’ cooperation thus far, forgo prosecuting the aircraft manufacturer, it may, after the investigations bring criminal actions against the persons who actually paid or received the bribes complained of.
Such a move is likely to include the intermediaries in Ghana and related individuals. In such a case, the SFO may rely on Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) provisions under English law to mount the relevant charges.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this page do not necessarily characterize the views or policy of LamarBlogspot. Please inform us of any inappropriate content so that we may prioritize evaluating it.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of financial markets, tokenization is emerging as a pivotal innovation. With industry leaders gravitating toward tokenized forms of value, players across the sector are recognizing an array of benefits. These include the potential to unlock market liquidity, streamline post-trade processing, foster automation, and enhance transparency. This surge in interest is underscored by a striking statistic: 97% of institutional investors¹ believe that tokenization is poised to revolutionize asset management.
However, this promising horizon is not without its challenges, such as the fragmentation of regulatory frameworks related to tokenized assets, which vary significantly across different regions. Adding to this complexity is the lack of interoperability between various blockchain networks, which currently host different types of tokenized assets represented in various formats. This requires more upfront investment for new entrants, and limits liquidity in each network. Liability and recourse in cross-chain transfers require greater clarity. In decentralized blockchain networks, which are often open-source technologies, attributing liability becomes challenging. This complexity is amplified in scenarios involving cross-chain token bridge solutions, where the roles and liabilities of smart contract owners remain ambiguous.
Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) presents a novel solution to many challenges associated with tokenization in financial markets. It offers a more transparent and traceable framework for asset transfers, thereby potentially simplifying compliance with regulatory requirements from a diverse set of regulators. If there is a need to investigate a transaction, perhaps for compliance checks or to resolve a dispute, CCIP’s framework could be used to track the transaction’s entire journey across chains. This capability is significant in addressing potential regulatory requirements, as it provides a reliable method to ascertain the history and legitimacy of tokenized assets, which is often a requirement under various regulatory frameworks.
Moreover, CCIP’s ability to connect various blockchains through existing infrastructures allows financial institutions to leverage their current systems to interact with different blockchain networks securely. This aligns with the legal requirement of monitoring and managing tokenized assets effectively.
CCIP’s unique approach also helps meet institutional requirements around maintaining necessary roles and regulatory compliance. Financial institutions need to ensure that the recording and management of assets on the blockchain are in compliance with regulatory standards.
Institutional Requirements Around Policies and Controls
Monitoring and Integrity of Asset Quantities to ensure that it matches the issued quantity of securities. This is crucial to prevent unauthorized creation or deletion of assets.
Segregation of Assets and Management of Participation of different entities must be managed by the Designated Depository. This includes both institutional and knowledgeable non-institutional investors.
Prevention of Settlement Fails and Finality are to be ensured to guarantee the trading system’s stability and reliability. Finality should be established in near-real-time within the day, or at most by the second business day post-trade.
Transaction Confirmation should be a clear and accurate confirmation of transaction details.
Settlement in Central Bank Money or Commercial Bank Money is preferred.
Compliance with Regulatory Standards, including compliance with existing financial regulations, as well as any new regulations specific to DLT-based securities trading and settlement.
Effective Risk Management must be in place, including managing technological risks, cybersecurity threats, and operational risks.
High levels of Transparency and Reporting to regulatory authorities to ensure compliance and facilitate oversight.
Features and Use Cases of Chainlink CCIP for Financial Institutions
Efficient Integration Across Multiple Chains: A significant challenge for capital markets and financial institutions is the integration with a rising number of blockchain networks. Manual integration is not only time-consuming but also costly, often requiring specialized access to blockchain developers. The collaboration between Swift and Chainlink addressed this by enabling efficient integration with various blockchains, reducing the need for manual, individual integrations.
Streamlined Transaction Processes and Liquidity Aggregation: CCIP allows financial institutions to connect to the blockchain ecosystem through a single integration point, which speeds up development and market entry significantly. It also facilitates liquidity flows between various trading environments and provides shared access to users for applications and products across different markets. Ultimately, CCIP as a universal cross-chain standard simplifies the transaction process, making it more efficient and cost-effective.
Interoperability Between Public and Private Chains: The ability of financial institutions to trigger transactions on both public and private chains, without the need for direct integration with those chains, is a significant advancement. This functionality of CCIP enables users of different blockchain networks to interact seamlessly with each other, enhancing the scope of financial transactions across diverse blockchain environments.
Enhanced Functionality with Smart Contracts: CCIP allows Programmable Token Transfers, which are the sending of messages and tokens with instructions attached. These instructions can dictate actions on the destination chain, such as executing specific smart contract functions on arrival. This feature adds a layer of functionality, allowing for more complicated and tailored financial transactions.
Robust Risk Management and Security: Policies and parameters can be coded into the CCIP Risk Management Network. This includes access control and multi-signature policies, ensuring high security and compliance standards. Additionally, the system can adapt to changes in security requirements, modifying transferred assets accordingly.
Handling Real-World Asset Tokens: CCIP enables the transfer of real-world asset tokens across different chains, maintaining up-to-date information and ensuring asset integrity, even as they move across various chains. This feature is critical for tokenized assets, ensuring they are accurately represented and enabling the creation of a unified golden record.
Cross-Chain Settlement of Real-World Assets: A case study with the Australia and New Zealand Bank (ANZ) demonstrates the practical application of this technology. It involved a customer buying a green finance asset token denominated in one stablecoin on a blockchain using a different stablecoin from another blockchain. This test ensured that payment and asset transfer occurred simultaneously and securely, highlighting the system’s capability to handle complex, real-world financial transactions, such as a cross-border, cross-chain, cross-currency transaction.
Facilitating Multi-Chain Environment for Regulated Financial Institutions: The case study showed how ANZ, a regulated financial institution, can provide institutional clients access to a variety of tokenized assets across multiple blockchains. This creates a smooth customer experience and enables cross-chain interaction via a single interface, addressing challenges like liquidity fragmentation and integration issues in multi-chain environments.
Simplification and Standardization in Transferring Tokenized Assets: The ability to transfer tokenized assets with minimal changes to existing systems is crucial for financial service providers. As demonstrated in the collaboration between Swift and Chainlink, by leveraging Swift’s existing infrastructure and message standards (ISO 15022 or ISO 20022), providers can issue instructions for the transfer of tokenized assets in a manner similar to current processes. This use case is particularly relevant as it facilitates a smoother transition to handling digital assets without extensive investment or disruption.
Detailed Description of a Possible Use Case: Tokenized Real Estate Asset Transfer Using Chainlink
Background
Real estate, traditionally an illiquid asset class with high entry barriers, is being revolutionized by blockchain technology. Tokenization of real estate assets transforms physical properties into digital tokens on a blockchain, making them more accessible, divisible, and liquid. In this use case, we describe the process of transferring a tokenized real estate asset using CCIP’s interoperability solution.
Scenario
The hypothetical real estate company, RealEstate Inc., owns a commercial building in downtown New York. To raise capital for new projects and provide liquidity to its assets, RealEstate decides to tokenize this property. Each token represents a share of ownership in the property. The company plans to sell these tokens to a mix of individual and institutional investors worldwide.
Participants
RealEstate Inc.: The real estate company owning the property. Investors: Individuals and institutions seeking to purchase tokenized real estate. Custodians: Financial institutions holding and managing digital assets on behalf of investors. Chainlink CCIP: The platform used for secure, cross-chain transfer of tokenized assets.
Process Flow
Tokenization of Real Estate Asset: In our theoretical scenario, RealEstate Inc. works with a blockchain service provider to tokenize the commercial building. The property is divided into 10,000 digital tokens, each representing an equal share of the property.
Listing and Offering Tokens: The tokens are listed on a regulated digital asset exchange where investors can purchase them. RealEstate sets the initial price per token based on the property’s valuation.
Investor Purchase: An investor, using a private blockchain network for their transactions, decides to purchase 100 tokens. They initiate the transaction using their blockchain network.
Chainlink Integration for Cross-Chain Transfer in this Scenario:
The investor’s custodian generates a transaction request on their native blockchain. Chainlink CCIP receives this request. CCIP translates and routes the request to the appropriate blockchain network where the real estate tokens are held. The system ensures compliance with regulatory and security protocols during the transfer.
Transaction Execution and Settlement:
The required number of tokens (100) is locked and prepared for transfer. The investor’s payment in the native currency or stablecoin is processed and confirmed. Upon successful payment confirmation, the tokenized real estate shares are transferred to the investor’s custody account. Chainlink CCIP updates both parties and relevant custodians about the transaction status and completion.
Post-Transaction:
The investor now holds 100 tokens, representing partial ownership of the commercial building. RealEstate receives the investment funds and updates its records to reflect the new ownership distribution. The transaction is recorded on the respective blockchains, ensuring transparency and immutability.
This use case demonstrates the potential of CCIP to facilitate seamless, secure, and efficient cross-chain transfers of tokenized real-world assets like real estate. It opens up global investment opportunities, reduces barriers to entry, and enhances liquidity in traditionally illiquid asset markets.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the integration of Chainlink CCIP is transforming the financial services industry by addressing key challenges in tokenization, such regulatory fragmentation and cross-chain interoperability. This advancement streamlines transaction processes, enhances asset liquidity, and can help robust security and compliance standards. As the industry continues to evolve, these innovations pave the way for more efficient, transparent, and accessible global financial markets.
Chainlink Labs will provide essential support to businesses engaged with PwC Germany, aiding those who seek to enter the blockchain economy yet lack the necessary skills for smart contract development and node infrastructure management. PwC Germany possesses extensive expertise in regulations, technical design, implementation, and operation of web3 infrastructure. This deep-seated knowledge further enhances the partnership’s ability to offer comprehensive solutions in the blockchain space, ensuring clients not only develop and deploy secure and compliant blockchain applications but also effectively navigate the complex landscape of web3 technology.
With the combined expertise of Chainlink and PwC Germany, companies will receive tailored support in creating custom blockchain solutions, leveraging the capabilities of the Chainlink platform.
Here – have another story about institutions and ETH!
This time, we’re talking about Lido who have just launched ‘Lido Institutional,’ a B2B-focused white glove service targeted at large customers like crypto funds and asset managers who hold ETH.
Who/what is Lido?
Lido is the largest liquid staking platform which means it lets customers lock up their ETH, but also provides them with a special token – stETH – to hold, trade, use as collateral etc. while their ETH earns interest.
(Pretty neat).
According to data from Dune, Lido controls ~28.75% of all staked ETH on Ethereum.
And now they’re taking that dominant position and building on it by creating an offering specifically focused on institutions.
How’s the new offering work?
The main advantage of Lido Institutional seems to be that they’ve figure out a way to avoid the commingling of institutionally-owned stETH with stETH owned by Lido’s retail investors.
With the ETH ETFs being launched, that’s a huge unlock for institutions to get access to ETH, without literally buying ETH.
But the thing about ETH is, while historically its value does go up year-on-year, one of it’s main advantages is all of the other things you can do with it – like staking.
(Meanwhile, the ETH ETFs are not allowed to stake their ETH holdings).
So basically, Lido Institutional is a slightly more sophisticated alternative to the ETH ETFs for hedge funds to get access to ETH – plus it’s more decentralized and it almost certainly will provide a greater return (that’s the whole point of staking).
Pretty smart by Lido to ride the coattails of the explosion of ETH purchases by institutions.
The ETH ETFs are coming in hotter than the milk we’re just now remembering we left in the car (ooops).
They took in more investor dollars yesterday than on their debut (with investors buying up 40,700 ETH) — totally ignoring the market implosion in the process!
Which continues to back up the theory we floated yesterday:
If the big-dogs of the traditional financial world are buying the dip, the bull run is still on.
So if all goes to plan — where to from here?
Simple: base → climb → crunch.
Base = investors continuing to buy at what they see as a bargain, creating a price base that will be hard to break down from.
Climb = as more investors try to get in at these prices, ETH will begin to recover.
Crunch = supply crunch. At a certain point, ETH’s demand will outweigh its supply, pushing Ether to new all time highs.
