Well, as a retired Investment Banker who has worked for some of the best firms globally, I disagree; anyone who has spent anytime working in the field know it’s riddled with inefficiencies that exist solely to protect business and profit margins. This is why we, for example, we are still running COBOL programs originally written in the 1960s. Why replace something that works? Doing so would only impact profit margins. So banks don’t replace old code and instead deploy solutions (e.g., virtual machines) allowing old code to be run on new hardware without change. Job done, margin protected. The list of similar examples is incredibly long.
But here is more relevant example: I have revenue generating assets in The US. About once a year I want to bring cash to The UK to buy a house (I’ve been building a property business for the past 20Y).
The old way involved wire transfers, at least five intermediaries (banks DO NOT transfer funds internationally from A to B, simply because not all banks are licensed to transfer money internationally) and cost between 3% to 5% of funds remitted. Oh yeh, takes anywhere from two to five BUSINESS days.
The new way is blockchain based, transfers are typically done in seconds, and cost far less than 0.50%
The legacy system is the problem, not newer technologies. The incumbents, entrenched in legacy systems, raise many of these arguments to confuse people, deflect and protect their business and profit margins.