6 ms·

This is Accenture's report into the project as commissioned by the ASX. I encourage people to read it as it goes into the technical and management details as to

• madeofpalk 4y ago
  Did Accenture tell them to build on blockchain in the first place?
  • mrjin 4y ago
    Do you really think they care?
  • thedataangel 4y ago
    I don't _think_ Accenture were the original or primary contractor. I'm Australian and interviewed with Digital Asset for that project - as far as I'm aware, DA were the main company responsible, although from what I've heard from people working on it, a lot of the failure stems from mismanagement on the ASX side.
  • blitzar 4y ago
    It reads like accenture might have reccomended the accenture blockchain a few years ago.
• mjburgess 4y ago
  Where does it go into the management details? I've skim read through it, and it reads vastly too weak. They used a blockchain haskell implementation on a fringe blockchain technology, and wrote nearly all their business logic in it. If I were them, I'd immediately sue whoever built it. This level of gross incompetence reads to me like they were scammed, used as patsies to integrate blockchain into a client.
  • blitzar 4y ago
    It is paid for and reads like it was paid for by ASX - damning enough to say the solution is woeful, but knows that the person paying their consulancy fee green lit the vision to jam a square peg into a round hole.
    • mjburgess 4y ago
      Yes, that's exactly how it reads. It bends over backwards to say that somehow this approach meets some non-functional reqs. But it cannot plausibly meet any such requirements well. Even praising the "quality" of the haskell code whose job it is to provide a casio-watch level of compute power over an immutable distributed ledger. For $250m! It would be fascinating if, eg., the Australian gov forced Accenture to release their internal docs. I imagine there are several versions of me with with much much more strongly-worded things to say. This feels like it would go well in a netflix documentary retrospective on the "blockchain con" and how it duped gen-z and ceos.
      • blitzar 4y ago
        The bit I never understand, and these projects crop up all the time - for 250mil ... seed a company that you 100% own to build the solution. Or if you have to pay 100mil for the drop in already complete solution (which sounds insanely expensive).
        • mjburgess 4y ago
          When you outsource dev, you also outsource responsibility. Much of what board members do is play games to keep themselves in power.
          • mrjin 4y ago
            It was never about outsourcing.
          • blitzar 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• chris_wot 4y ago
  lol “Greater consideration is required regarding the purpose of the consensus layer given ASX’s position as the central market operator for the CHESS use case.” And “ From a participant standpoint in the current design and architecture (not withstanding future use cases), there is little value to processing all the business logic on-ledger as ASX maintain data integrity as the market operator and participants receive a point-in-time view via API contracts.”
  • ed25519FUUU 4y ago
    Nobody wanted to ask questions because engineers love building sexy things and consultants love billing sexy things.
  • stubish 4y ago
    This really points to the complete ridiculousness of the project. The ASX is in the business of being a central market operator. The only advantage of a blockchain is to be distributed. So the ASX spent all that money on a project, that if it had worked, would provide no benefit to them. If successful it would pave the way to putting them out of business.