Banks rely on ledgers, and the essence of blockchain is also a ledger. However, there is a fundamental difference between this ledger and that ledger. The choices faced by today's banks are similar to those faced by newspapers/magazines in the past: either embrace the internet and become new media, or cling to print media until there are few subscribers left. The arrival of stablecoins further strengthens this trend.

On the surface, we can see many banks starting to adopt cryptographic technology. If we look at it from the most fundamental logic, why will cryptographic ledgers ultimately replace bank ledgers? This involves accounting methods.

Traditional banks mainly use double-entry bookkeeping, while blockchain introduces triple-entry bookkeeping. Double-entry bookkeeping originated in Italy during the Middle Ages and is the universal accounting foundation in most countries around the world. It requires that every transaction, such as deposits, loans, and transfers, must be recorded in equal amounts in at least two related accounts, ensuring that each transaction is verified in both directions. For example, one side is the "debit," which will correspond to the related "credit." This ensures that assets = liabilities + equity, achieving balance and facilitating auditing.

When you deposit 1,000 yuan into a bank, the bank will record: Debit: Cash 1,000 yuan; Credit: Customer Deposit 1,000 yuan (liability subclass). However, traditional double-entry bookkeeping relies on independent record-keeping by various parties, which carries the risk of tampering and reconciliation inaccuracies. For instance, the money a person has in the bank is essentially a number on the bank's ledger. Theoretically, the bank can modify this number, and people can only trust the bank's brand/third-party audits/regulations, meaning they need to believe that the bank will not act maliciously and that third parties can audit and regulate. For example, the Enron scandal in 2001 involved falsifying accounts through loopholes in double-entry bookkeeping, leading to bankruptcy.

Speaking of double-entry bookkeeping, is there a single-entry bookkeeping method? There is indeed; single-entry bookkeeping is a simple cash book that records only one entry. In comparison, double-entry bookkeeping is more rigorous.

So, what is different about blockchain's triple-entry bookkeeping? Triple-entry bookkeeping builds on double-entry bookkeeping by adding a "third entry": a shared, tamper-proof record. This record can currently be achieved through a trustless, intermediary-free blockchain. This is the benefit of distributed ledgers.

This third entry is often a cryptographic signature receipt or a timestamp block, which requires network consensus for verification, such as the PoW mechanism of BTC and the PoS mechanism of Ethereum. This method addresses the trust issues of double-entry bookkeeping; it cannot be tampered with, and there are no reconciliation inaccuracies. The so-called triple-entry means that transactions are trustworthy and auditable through the blockchain acting as a "third-party" arbiter.

For example, Ethereum is essentially a distributed ledger where each transaction is recorded in both the sender's and receiver's accounts (similar to the debit/credit in double-entry bookkeeping), and there is also a network consensus mechanism (PoS mechanism) to generate an immutable "third entry": a cryptographic signature timestamp block.

Triple-entry, in essence, creates an unchangeable record, and its existence is more efficient than double-entry bookkeeping, eliminating the need for intermediaries to manage and reducing auditing work. In simple terms, double-entry means both parties keep a ledger; triple-entry adds a "smart lockbox" that automatically seals and witnesses across the network. It cannot be tampered with, and auditing can be done in seconds.

Ultimately, for banks to go on-chain, from a fundamental logic perspective, it means changing their double-entry bookkeeping to triple-entry bookkeeping. Once privacy issues (ZK proofs), compliance issues (KYC), and others are resolved, banking operations on-chain can greatly improve efficiency, and banks will no longer need to maintain large, outdated financial systems, shifting to a new, non-downtime cryptographic chain system.

Either embrace it or be marginalized; this is one of the most important issues that banks and other financial institutions will face in the next twenty years.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。