为什么加密账本最终会取代银行账本？

Embrace or marginalize—that is one of the most important issues facing banks and other financial institutions in the next twenty years. Article by: Blue Fox Banks rely on ledgers, and blockchain’s most fundamental aspect is also a ledger. But this ledger is fundamentally different from that ledger. Today’s banks face a choice similar to the one faced by newspapers/magazines in the past: either embrace the internet and become new media, or stick to print media until subscriptions dwindle. The arrival of stablecoins further reinforces this trend. On the surface, we see many banks beginning to adopt encryption technology. But from a fundamental logical perspective, why will encrypted ledgers ultimately replace bank ledgers? This involves accounting methods. Traditional banks mainly use double-entry bookkeeping, while blockchain introduces a triple-entry bookkeeping system. Double-entry bookkeeping originated in Italy during the Middle Ages and is the accounting foundation used by most countries worldwide. It requires that every transaction, such as deposits, loans, or transfers, be recorded simultaneously in at least two related accounts with equal amounts, ensuring bidirectional verification of each transaction. For example, one side is the “debit,” which must correspond to the related “credit.” This guarantees that assets = liabilities + equity, achieving balance and facilitating audits. When you deposit 1000 yuan into a bank, the bank records: Debit: Cash 1000 yuan; Credit: Customer Deposits 1000 yuan (a liability). However, traditional double-entry bookkeeping relies on independent record-keeping by each party, which can be tampered with or lead to reconciliation errors. For example, the money a person has in the bank is essentially just a number on the bank’s ledger. In theory, the bank can modify this number; people can only trust the bank’s brand, third-party audits, or regulators—meaning they need to trust that the bank does not commit fraud and that third-party audits and regulations are trustworthy. For example, the Enron scandal in 2001 used loopholes in double-entry bookkeeping to falsify accounts, leading to bankruptcy. Regarding double-entry bookkeeping, is there a single-entry method? Yes, there is—single-entry bookkeeping, which is just a running account that records only one side. Compared to double-entry, single-entry is less rigorous. So, what’s different about the triple-entry bookkeeping system in blockchain? It adds a “third entry”: a shared, tamper-proof record. This record can now be implemented via trustless, intermediary-free blockchain technology. This is the advantage of distributed ledgers. The third entry is often an encrypted signature receipt or timestamp block, which requires network consensus to prevent tampering, such as Bitcoin’s PoW mechanism or Ethereum’s PoS mechanism. This approach solves the trust issues inherent in double-entry bookkeeping; it cannot be tampered with and eliminates reconciliation errors. The so-called triple-entry means that blockchain acts as a “third-party” arbiter, making transactions trustworthy and auditable. For example, Ethereum is essentially a distributed ledger where each transaction is recorded in both the sender’s and receiver’s accounts (similar to debit/credit in double-entry), and a network consensus mechanism (PoS) generates an immutable “third entry”: an encrypted signed timestamp block. Essentially, the triple-entry system creates an unchangeable record through block creation, which is more efficient than double-entry bookkeeping, requires no intermediary management, and reduces auditing work. Simply put, double-entry is each side keeping its own record; triple-entry adds a “smart lockbox” that automatically stamps and witnesses across the network. It’s tamper-proof, with instant account reconciliation. Ultimately, bringing banks onto the blockchain means changing from double-entry to triple-entry bookkeeping. Once privacy issues (ZK proofs) and compliance issues (KYC) are addressed, on-chain banking can greatly improve efficiency. Banks will no longer need to maintain large, outdated financial systems but can shift to a new, non-crashing encrypted blockchain system. Embrace or marginalize—that is one of the most important issues facing banks and other financial institutions in the next twenty years.

Disclaimer: This article only reflects the author’s personal views and does not constitute any investment advice. The market carries risks; invest cautiously.
Follow me: Get more real-time analysis and insights into the crypto market!