The Board of the Cardano Foundation recently spoke about its views on the project.
He noted that Cardano has massive potential that can be exploited by banks and financial institutions.
He also noted that the conversion of Cardano into a genuine data protection coin would not help the project in the long run.
Cardano (ADA) has always been an interesting project that likes to take its time and does not rush things. However, this also means that its future can still be changed and its community is constantly debating how the ADA could go on in the future.
The Managing Director of the Cardano Foundation, Frederik Gregaard, has now decided to share his views on this topic with the community in a round of questions.
Cardano has use cases in the banking sector
Gregaard talked quite a lot about the most important use cases of Cardano and what problems can be solved with the project. In his opinion, most of them will be in the financial services and insurance sector.
Given his background in the financial services industry, he said it made sense for the foundation’s board of directors to focus on this area. He has quite a lot of experience in the banking sector, which enabled him to understand the views of the banking sector on cryptography, and when the latter came up with the idea that cryptography leads nowhere, he woke up.
In his opinion, ADA could play a major role in the banking sector. In fact, banks could choose to store some of their holdings with ADA. He admitted that he already knows some banks that are capable of doing so, although he hesitated to name them.
Nevertheless, he emphasized that as a former banker, he knows exactly which buttons to push to increase the likelihood that ADA will be used in this sector.
Why ADA should not become a privacy coin
He also spoke about whether Cardano can protect the privacy of its users or not. In this context, Gregaard noted that it would not be a good choice for the banks to make ADA a full privacy coin. The project’s current privacy features are similar to those of Bitcoin, with the main difference between the two being the architecture.
However, he continues to argue that ADA, as it is, already has many real use cases in the mainstream financial system, and that a change that would change this would not be beneficial to the project.