U4 Issue 2020:7

Blockchain as an anti-
corruption tool
Case examples and introduction to the
technology

By Per Aarvik
Series editor: Arne Strand
Disclaimer
All views in this text are the author(s)’, and may differ from the U4 partner agencies’ policies.
Partner agencies
Australian Government – Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade – DFAT
German Corporation for International Cooperation – GIZ
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development – BMZ
Global Affairs Canada
Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark / Danish International Development Assistance – Danida
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency – Sida
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation – SDC
The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation – Norad
UK Aid – Department for International Development
About U4
U4 is a team of anti-corruption advisers working to share research and evidence to help
international development actors get sustainable results. The work involves
dialogue, publications, online training, workshops, helpdesk, and innovation. U4 is a permanent
centre at the Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI) in Norway. CMI is a non-profit, multi-disciplinary
research institute with social scientists specialising in development studies.
www.U4.no
[email protected]
Cover photo
Clifford Photography on Unsplash (CC cc0) https://unsplash.com/photos/TekPZz1YP3A
Keywords
blockchain - corruption - development - e-government - illicit financial flows - money laundering -
sustainable development goals - transparency
Publication type
U4 Issue
Creative commons

This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0

International licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
The technology behind bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies was supposed to end poverty,
eliminate corruption, and provide financial inclusion for all. The very financial
institutions it was created to exclude are adopting the technology to increase
transactions’ security and reduce costs. Its degree of success is more contextual than
related to the technology itself.

Main points
• Blockchain has the potential to be a game changer in anti-corruption efforts.
Whether it is successful or not largely depends on contextual elements –
infrastructures, legal systems, social or political settings – rather than on the
technology itself.
• Implementation of blockchain technologies in governance affects fundamental
aspects of society, such as trust in institutions, identity, transparency, and data and
privacy protection.
• A blockchain is designed to operate in environments where trust in data/code is
greater than trust in individuals or institutions.
• Records entered in the blockchain are transparent and immutable. Because of these
features, there may be conflicts with individual rights such as the right to privacy or
the right to be forgotten, as described in the European Union General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR).
• When blockchains hold registries of physical items, trusted gatekeepers have to
ensure that the physical reality and digital information correspond.
• Digital infrastructure, governing regulations, and digital literacy should be in place
before blockchain-enabled registries are rolled out, particularly in developing
countries.
• Decision makers should have an understanding of the technology before deciding on
whether or not it is appropriate.
Table of contents
An overview of blockchains and cryptocurrencies 2

The blockchain and Bitcoin: A brief history 2

Consensus mechanisms 3

Power consumption and energy footprint 4

Sovereign and corporate cryptocurrencies 5

The four major types of blockchain 7

Confusing definitions 8

Prerequisites for blockchain technologies 9

Properties of blockchain relevant for anti-corruption 10

Trust in people and trust in code 11

Trust in gatekeepers 11

Transparency vs privacy 13

Distributed or re-centralised power? 14

Blockchain applications 14

Land rights 14

Digital Identities 18

Remittances and global transactions 21

Regulating the flow of crypto assets 22

Blockchain, provenance, and logistics tracking 23

Digital literacy as a prerequisite to harness the blockchain’s potential 24

Methodology 24

References 26

a
About the author
Per Aarvik

Per is an independent writer on applied digital technology for humanitarianism,

development, governance and anti-corruption. Social media data, satellite imagery,
geographical information systems, and applied artificial intelligence are among his
interests. He holds a Master's degree in Democracy Building from the Department of
Comparative Politics, University of Bergen, Norway. His thesis focused on the potential
of crowdsourced civil society election monitoring as a tool to combat election fraud. His
background is from journalism, advertising and higher design education – as a
practitioner, educator, and in managerial roles. In recent years he has led digital
humanitarian work during disasters and in democracy projects.

Acknowledgements
Niklas Kossow, PhD at Hertie School, The University of Governance in Berlin, and Jan
Isaksen, CMI Emeritus, have contributed valuable inputs and comments to the report.
Thanks also to Arne Strand, director of U4, for his guidance and conversations in the
making of the text.

Abbreviations
AML – Anti-Money Laundering
CBDC/NDC – Central Bank Digital Currency also referred to as National Digital
Currency
CDD – Customer Due Diligence
CFT / CTF – Countering the Financing of Terrorism / Counter Terrorist Financing
(used)
DBVN – Decentralized Borderless Voluntary Nation
DAO – Decentralized autonomous organisation
FATF – Financial Action Task Force
Fork – A blockchain fork is the split occurring when consensus is not reached on a new
block
GDPR – General Data Protection Regulation (Europe)
ISA – Information System Authority (Estonia)
KYC – Know Your Client / Know Your Customer
NAPR – National Agency of Public Registry (Georgia)
P2P – Peer-to-Peer networks without a central hub or decision maker
PoS – Proof of Stake – consensus algorithm in blockchains such as Ethereum
PoW – Proof of Work – consensus algorithm in blockchains such as the Bitcoin
VA – Virtual Asset / Virtual Goods – non-tangible assets or goods
VASP – Virtual Asset Service Provider
Stablecoin – A cryptocurrency linked to fiat currencies or other values for stability
SSO – Single Sign On – offered by corporations such as Google, Facebook or Twitter
SSI – Self Sovereign Identity – ID system proposed by Blockchain Bundesverband,
Germany
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and the blockchain technology behind them, have gained a lot
of attention in recent years. Bitcoin was introduced in 2008 when trust in financial
institutions was at its lowest. The technology was later repurposed for thematic areas
other than digital currency. Some experts predicted that blockchain technologies would
end poverty, eliminate corruption, and provide financial inclusion for all. Things have
changed. Financial institutions and digital corporations are adopting the technology to
increase efficiency and to create new financial products.

Blockchain technologies are attracting development

organisations and anti-corruption communities
because of their potential to prevent corruption and
protect public registries from fraud and tampering.
Blockchain technologies also attract development organisations and anti-corruption
communities as tools that can potentially prevent corruption and protect public registries
from fraud and tampering. These technologies have even been suggested as a tool to
fulfil Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to legal identity and financial
inclusion. In humanitarian contexts, the blockchain has, in some cases, replaced
traditional banking services to reduce transaction costs and to facilitate tracking of funds
and audits in cash-based interventions. Diamonds, luxury objects or gemstones are
recorded on blockchains to provide proof of provenance and prevent illegal goods from
entering the market. The technology has many uses and can be implemented to increase
efficiency and profit, or to reduce the risk of disputes and increase traceability.

Blockchain is the underlying platform for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. The
technology, designed for a borderless digital currency, was intended to be free from the
control of countries and financial institutions, which are now adopting it and modifying
it to fit their needs. Digital currencies such as the Libra, part of a project launched by a
consortium of companies and NGOs, challenge lawmakers and regulators.

Blockchain is a method for storing records, where cryptography is used to link data in a
chained structure. Through its verification mechanisms, the blockchain promises to
establish trust where trust is absent. Its distributed nature, where a ledger is duplicated
among several nodes, prevents unnoticed attempts to falsify records.

Because of its potential and its different applications, the technology generates
diverging, if not contradicting, opinions. Enthusiasts describe it as a “revolution in
trust,” while sceptics criticise it for potentially leading to a society trusting code and

1
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

technology more than humans. Some view blockchain as the most “promising
disruptive technology in the fight against corruption” and as a reliable alternative in
countries where data maintenance is poor and corruption rampant. Others warn against
deploying it unless a number of prerequisites are in place, such as internet connectivity,
digitised public records, and a tech-savvy population.

The following U4 Issue attempts to identify core functions of blockchain technology

and to evaluate its applicability in anti-corruption and integrity-related projects.

An overview of blockchains and

cryptocurrencies

The blockchain and Bitcoin: A brief history

A paper on the issue of time-stamping a digital document describes how, in the early
1990s, cryptographers tackled the problem of certifying the authenticity of digital
content such as text, video, or audio. Digital content could be easily modified or
duplicated. It was difficult to certify the date of creation or alteration of a certain
document or file. The proposed solution was to digitally timestamp documents and link
these “certificates” in a chain using cryptography and digital signatures. The aim was to
make it impossible to back-date or forward-date digital content and thereby to provide
proof of authenticity. The concept was further developed, clustering several documents
in groups – or blocks. The term blockchain was coined.

Almost simultaneously, electronic cash started making its appearance. Ecash first
appeared in the mid-nineties and was used for micropayments. The technology was
adopted by some European banks, such as Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank, but later
abandoned.

The predecessor of Bitcoin was the Bit Gold, which, however, never reached markets.
In 2008, a famous white paper, written under the pseudonym of Satoshi
Nakamoto,described a radical, libertarian, global, and entirely digital currency. The
currency would not be governed by any institutions, but managed by a network of
volunteer stakeholders, bypassing central banks.

Although Bitcoin is the most well-known cryptocurrency and one of the first players to
appear in the crypto money world, there are now hundreds of competitors. All

2
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

transactions ever made are visible on the Bitcoin blockchain. They are written on the
ledger, clustered in blocks, and linked to each other in an unbreakable chain by the use
of cryptographic hashes. The complete ledger is replicated among all full nodes in the
network. The nodes are the computers running the software behind Bitcoin. A
computational algorithm is used to prevent double spending of coins, ensure that only
valid transactions are accepted, and protect the blockchain from attacks. This is the
consensus mechanism, which is crucial to ensure trust in the blockchain.

Consensus mechanisms
When new transactions are made, they are communicated to all nodes. A computational
challenge is used as a consensus mechanism aiming to agree on the cryptographic hash
for the next block and verify the transactions recorded in the previous block. The work
is rewarded with transaction fees and new Bitcoins. This process is referred to as
“mining.” Different consensus mechanisms are at play for different types of
blockchains.

Proof of Work (PoW) is the original consensus mechanism behind Bitcoin. It includes a
mathematical task which is time-consuming and demanding in terms of computational
power but where the desired result is easily detected. The result has to be a
cryptographic hash with a value equal to or lower than a predefined target. This target is
set by the network and adjusted so that a new block is added to the network about every
10 minutes. The hash is found by trial and error, by inserting an integer in the algorithm,
a “nonce” or a number used only once. The first node to identify this value, is given the
right to name the next block in the chain. The task is rewarded with coins, hence the
term “mining.” The computational costs of fraudulent behaviour are designed to be
higher than the potential gains. Trust is secured by the programmed structure of the
network. The PoW algorithm typically enables 5-8 transactions per second. This poses a
major scalability challenge for Bitcoins.

An alternative verification method called Proof of Stake (PoS) selects a random number
of nodes to perform validation. The nodes have to lock up funds to be selected. These
funds are released after the calculations are completed and the new blocks are accepted.
Compared to PoW, PoS can cut energy consumption by 99%. The Ethereum blockchain
is planning to convert to PoS in 2020.

Finally, a method called Proof of Authority (PoA) is driving the verification process in
some private blockchains. In PoA systems, one or more of the nodes have the authority
to verify and add blocks. As explained in a post on the subject, this method does not

3
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

provide the benefits of a fully distributed public blockchain but can handle far more
transactions per second for a significantly lower computational cost.

Holders of cryptocurrencies or other digital documents access and manage their assets
through a digital wallet. The software can run on a laptop, tablet, or smartphone. The
access codes are often kept offline for security reasons, for example on a specialised
USB stick. The wallet holds cryptographic keys to access assets on the blockchain. If
the digital keys are lost, there is no way to restore them in an open blockchain. Without
any form of central governance, individuals are fully responsible for their own assets.

The blockchain in practise

The ledger of all transactions in a blockchain is duplicated to all participating nodes in the network. The
cryptographic hash of one block is included as content in the next, shaping a chain which can’t break
without being detected. (Illustration cred. OECD Blockchain Primer)

Power consumption and energy footprint

The Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index provides updated footprint calculations for the
cryptocurrency. Bitcoin mining uses the same amount of electricity consumed by

4
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

countries like Chile or Austria – about 77 Terawatt-hour (TWh) annually. A single

transaction equals the electricity consumption of three weeks of the average US
household, close to 650 kilowatt-hour (kWh). Much of the mining happens in China,
where coal-fuelled electricity adds to the carbon emissions. The global carbon footprint
of Bitcoin mining matches New Zealand’s total annual emissions – more than 36
megatonnes of CO2.

The algorithms that verify transactions and the search for cryptographic hashes to name
new blocks are complex activities that demand a huge amount of computing power.
This is a consequence of the PoW consensus mechanism. The electronic waste,
amplified by the need for the latest and fastest hardware, further reduces the
sustainability of the cryptocurrencies using the PoW protocol.

With a maximum rate of only 5-8 transactions per second, blockchains relying on the
PoW consensus mechanism also have a scalability challenge. VISA, for instance,
handles an average of 1,700 transactions per second. PoS or PoA are less costly, more
energy efficient and also better able to handle a greater number of transactions.
Different consensus mechanisms or reduced numbers of nodes could compensate for the
scalability and energy problems.

A McKinsey report from 2018 acknowledges that distributed ledgers may serve niche
applications “within insurance, supply chains, and capital markets, in which distributed
ledgers can tackle pain points including inefficiency, process opacity, and fraud.” But
for most applications, including international payment systems, they suggest simpler
solutions.

Sovereign and corporate cryptocurrencies

Hundreds of alternative cryptocurrencies based on blockchain technology have emerged
since the creation of Bitcoin. Some have a setup similar to that of Bitcoin, others are
linked to a government-issued currency, a fiat currency. Bitcoin has some major
challenges connected to its slow transaction rates, energy-consuming computational
complexity, and its vulnerability to speculation resulting in short term volatility.
Stablecoins are an attempt to avoid issues of volatility. They are in fact backed by a
reserve, much like fiat currencies are supported by a central bank. Venezuela has, for
example, issued its own sovereign cryptocurrency, the Petro. Backed by oil reserves, the
Petro was meant to be a stable asset to meet the challenges of a free-falling Bolivar and
avoid US sanctions. It has not been a success, and citizens now flock to other
cryptocurrencies as a refuge against hyperinflation.

5
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

The most recent cryptocurrency project which gained attention and triggered concern by
regulators is the corporate cryptocurrency Libra. Facebook has formed a consortium of
tech companies and NGOs to govern the development of Libra. The currency is meant
to be backed by fiat reserves. But the project has received mixed reactions. A currency
managed by a giga-company such as Facebook with its 2,4 billion users could overnight
become a powerful financial player, possibly the world’s largest bank. The currency
could overrun small sovereign currencies and deprive governments of control over their
financial systems. Regulators are following its development carefully, concerned about
a currency detached from the ordinary financial system.

During the OECD Global Blockchain Policy Forum in 2019, the French Minister of
Finance,addressed similar concerns for a private, global currency and stated that France
would reject the development of Libra on European soil. Major partners such as Visa,
Mastercard, and PayPal have pulled out of the project.

A few months later, China’s president Xi Jinping encouraged the development of

blockchain technologies during a speech to the Central Committee. He stated that China
will “seize the opportunity” and support blockchain research, development, and
standardisation. His speech signals a change in attitude of the Chinese leadership. Since
2017, the use of Bitcoins has been banned in China. Still, the country hosts a substantial
portion of Bitcoin miners, and has initiated work to develop its own digital currency.
Public support for blockchain has triggered speculationson whether China will launch
its own cryptocurrency, the e-Yuan. An article covering this issue discusses the
implications this move would have in China, especially in terms of monitoring financial
flows and preventing money laundering and tax evasion. If a digital currency replaces
cash, the government would theoretically be able to monitor all payments made with the
e-Yuan.

The Swedish central bank has, since 2017, been investigating the need for, and the
effects of, a state-backed digital currency. In February 2020, the bank announced a
collaboration with Accenture on a pilot project aimed at finding technical solutions that
would back a Swedish sovereign cryptocurrency. The technical requirements guiding
the pilot project note that: “The solution is based on digital tokens (e-kronor) that are
portable, cannot be forged or copied (doublespent) and enable instantaneous, peer-to-
peer payments as easily as sending a text.”The recent sharp decrease in the use of cash
in Sweden and the need for a digital alternative may explain the push behind the e-krona
project. The project is currently in a testing phase which may last one year. Once this
phase is over, political discussions and decisions will follow.

6
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

The European Central Bank (ECB) is also experimenting with an electronic Euro. But
while in Sweden the use of cash is rapidly declining, 79% of sales in Europe are still
based on cash. Because Europe has a very efficient banking system, the ECB struggles
to find incentives that are strong enough to justify the introduction of an e-Euro. Still it
“has established a proof of concept for anonymity in digital cash, referred to … as
‘central bank digital currency’.”

The four major types of blockchain

Blockchains have over time developed into several different types. Whether they are
open or closed, centralised or distributed, their qualities determine functionality and
energy consumption levels as well as consensus mechanisms. There are four major
types of blockchains. Each fulfils different purposes.

• The public, permissionless blockchain is open for anyone to sign into. It is typical
of cryptocurrencies such as the Ether or Bitcoin. The security measures it requires
demand significant computing resources, leading to high energy consumption and
scalability challenges.
• The public, permissioned blockchain is open for all to read, but only a
permissioned group has the ability to write records. This type of blockchain may be
used for supply chain management or provenance registries. Security measures are
simpler, transaction rates higher and energy consumption low.
• The closed, permissioned blockchain, where only authorised participants are
granted access, typically serves companies collaboratively sharing a distributed
ledger.
• The private blockchain is controlled by one entity. Access to this type of
blockchain is strictly supervised. It is often used for distribution of cryptocurrencies
and tokens in humanitarian aid initiatives. The functions of private blockchains
resemble those of a traditional database in that control is centralised. Their unique
feature is that records are stored in an “unbreakable” chain.

The Ethereum blockchain, with its currency “Ether,” entered the stage in 2015.
Although Ethereum is a decentralised network, the Ethereum foundation has some form
of oversight of its blockchain and currency. The Ethereum blockchain can hold any kind
of text and code, not just a ledger of timestamped transactions. The software therefore
enables so called “smart contracts.” Smart contracts are small applications governed by
agreements. They can execute automatically when given conditions are met, for
example by fulfilling escrow agreements in a real estate transaction.

7
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

In late 2015, the Linux community, joined by IBM and Intel, founded the Hyperledger
project. This is a private blockchain governed by one or more entities. The Hyperledger
consists of several specialised frameworks. One of them, the Hyperledger Fabric, is the
most frequently applied framework and promises to be a tool for financial applications
or for provenance and supply chain traceability. It is well known as the platform used to
track the provenance of diamonds.

Confusing definitions
The definition of a blockchain as a decentralised database distributed on a network of
nodes and updated through a consensus protocol is limiting. Several projects fall outside
this definition. The World Food Programme’s (WFP) pilot project Building Blocks has
been criticised for claiming to use blockchain technology, when all it really does is use
the database element of the technology. There is no consensus mechanism at play and
until recently the network consisted only of WFP hosting the database on a few servers
simulating a blockchain.

As an example of existing confusion on definitions, the Estonian Government data-

sharing system, the X-Road, is often classified as a blockchain, but, stricto sensu, it
isn’t. Some argue that a “blockchain is a decentralised and distributed database which is
updated through a consensus protocol,” and that “the common factor between
blockchain and X-Road is that they both use cryptographic hash functions for linking
data items to each other.”

Sometimes the words “blockchain” and “distributed ledger technology” (DLT) are used
interchangeably. A report discussing these terms notes that the word “blockchain” has
lost its meaning and lacks a “universal definition.” There is also concern surrounding
the use of these “problematic definitions” by regulators or lawmakers as a way “to pass
some sort of legislation to demonstrate how crypto-friendly or tech-savvy they are.”
When proper definitions are not in place, it becomes challenging to develop clear
frameworks and precise legislation to regulate the sector.

A benchmarking study on blockchain affairs across the financial services industry tries
to sort out the confusion by clarifying the various terms. The study describes a growing
industry with new actors from various backgrounds and shows how the development of
the technology is about to enter its production phase, which, especially in the finance
sector, is generating a natural push towards establishing working concepts. In the study,
the terms “blockchain” and “DLT” are used interchangeably, still presenting precise
properties of a distributed ledger technology. DLT is a “multi-party consensus system

8
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

that enables multiple distrusting entities to reach agreement over the ordering of
transactions in an adversarial environment without relying on a central trusted party.”
They specify five criteria to support the definition:

1. Multiple entities (computers) need to be able to create new records.

2. Entities need to reach agreement on the ordering of records.
3. Each entity needs to independently be able to validate records.
4. Each entity needs to be able to detect unauthorised changes to the records.
5. Entities must also be able to detect changes in consensus over records.

Only a few functioning systems today comply with these criteria. The authors of the
study recommend against using the term “blockchain” for systems only applying parts
of the technology. Yet, 77% of current projects use the terms “blockchain” or “DLT”
without being neither decentralised nor dependent on multiparty consensus.

A working paper series on blockchain economics explains the Blockchain Trilemma.

Correctness, decentralization, and cost efficiency are three qualities that should
ideally be found in any record-keeping system. The paper suggests that no blockchain
ledger can satisfy all three qualities at the same time and points to the computational
challenge in verification and consensus in a fully decentralised blockchain. On the one
side, this process leads to high costs. On the other side, leaving verification of records to
a few trusted nodes saves cost, but loses the idea of a fully distributed power of
decisions.

Prerequisites for blockchain technologies

While there is enthusiasm surrounding the potential applications of blockchain
technology, not all contexts have the right conditions for it. In the last five years, digital
land registries have emerged as a popular field of application.

A review of several projects that are incorporating blockchain technology into public
registries offers an understanding of the prerequisites that may need to be in place for
the technology to be successful. Records need to be digital, which in many cases entails
a cumbersome process to digitise paper documents. When disputes over conflicting
information, such as rights to ownership or use of land are solved, information should
be as correct as possible.

A secure, digital identity needs to be in place to establish a strong connection between a

person and their assets. A system enabling multiple signatures and allowing alterations

9
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

by entities other than the owner is preferable for property registries. If the sole owner of
an asset dies, a trusted entity should be able to transfer ownership. For digital registries
to be functional and transparent, users need access through an internet connection or
mobile broadband. Finally, the owners of the assets, just as much as anyone engaging
with regulations or conflict solving, are helpless without the digital literacy necessary to
access and manage registries.

The need for digital literacy, laws and regulations, or political decisions might be more
challenging for a digitalisation process than the technology itself. According to a
working paper on blockchain and property: “Blockchain is unusual in that it is a social
technology, designed to govern the behaviour of groups of people through social and
financial incentives. It is therefore inherently political in a way that few other
technologies are.”

Properties of blockchain relevant for anti-

corruption
Corruption in the public sector leads to a lack of trust between citizens and government
institutions. Transparency of government decisions and open public registries can
facilitate the monitoring of registries and reduce the risk for corruption.

The blockchain promises tamper-proof records that corrupt clerks or bureaucrats cannot
modify. The distribution of a ledger and the consensus mechanisms also make it
difficult for one entity to falsify entries. An article featured in the World Economic
Forum states that, “while the scalability of those solutions remains challenging,
blockchain has emerged as the most promising disruptive technology in the fight against
corruption… It possesses important features that can help anchor integrity in
bureaucracies, by securing identity, tracking funds, registering assets, and procuring
contracts.”

When corruption represents a breach of trust, a

technology that strengthens trust becomes an
attractive solution in public projects.
When corruption represents a breach of trust, a technology that strengthens trust
becomes an attractive solution in public projects.

10
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

Trust in people and trust in code

The continuous decline in confidence towards governments and policymakers in many
western societies has raised concerns for the health of our democracies.

In the online commerce arena, online trust became a key asset for transactions between
strangers. With the advent of the sharing economy, trust was mediated by online
platforms. Not only was trust a necessary element of online transactions, but it also
became part of in-person interactions: booking a room in the house of a complete
stranger, couchsurfing, riding in somebody else’s car. Trust has even been dubbed the
“currency” of the sharing economy.

Artificial intelligence systems, blockchain technologies, or smart, self- executing

contracts represent yet another test for people’s trust in technology. When analysing
digital tools, trust is highly dependent on the quality of the code underlying each
specific tool. Experts recommend a cautious approach towards online, digital tools,
especially in complex and sensitive contexts, as shown in the recent Iowa Democratic
Party caucuses in February 2020.

Trust is now dependent on the quality of the code. Those with the competence to alter
the code are in control. Poorly written code, insufficient testing, security breaches, or
hacker attacks challenge the confidence people have in decision-making systems.
Researchers are developing mechanisms to study and evaluate the trustworthiness of
code.

Trust in gatekeepers
The bitcoin blockchain was designed to reduce the dependency on institutions. Trust lies
in the algorithms managing consensus between the nodes of the blockchain network.
Code is the law and the enabler of trust. The technology has been called a “trust-
machine.” However, some experts add nuance to this definition. Without trust in the
technical devices that host them, or in the programmers and code, the whole blockchain
loses credibility.

The natural habitat of a cryptocurrency is cyberspace. It’s within those digital

boundaries that trust is secured. If Bitcoins were to leave cyberspace and were to be
converted into fiat currencies, there would need to be an oversight entity to supervise
transactions. Similarly, if the blockchain is securing physical records (for example for
land, diamonds or human beings) trust in those who enter the records in the blockchain

11
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

becomes critical. The incentives for good behaviour reside outside the blockchain and
its codes. Trust in governance bodies is a must.

An immutable record

For blockchain data to have any value, it must be

entered by a trusted person or operator.
Whether it is for precious minerals, land title, or
a refugee status – the person or office who
creates the record is equally important. As with a
Babylonian clay tablet, a blockchain record may
never change (Photo: Wikipedia, Public domain).

When blockchain records represent values or objects from the physical world, trust
needs to go beyond the digital sphere. The person or operator entering data must be
trusted for the data on the blockchain to have any value, as does the person or office
creating a record (whether it’s for precious minerals, a land title or a refugee status). If
this system fails, what remains is a false, immutable record. Just like the clay tablet
above, a record on a blockchain may never change.

Without trust, the ledger itself is worthless. Radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags
or biometric data are meant to secure the link between a physical entity and its digital
representation. But there still needs to be an individual doing the iris scan or attaching
the RFID tag to the object and making sure it stays there. When the blockchain record
describes a piece of land, it can only be trusted if the information matches reality. As
stated in a working paper series on blockchain economics: “While blockchains can keep
track of ownership transfers, enforcement of possession rights is still needed in many
blockchain applications.”

12
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

Transparency vs privacy
Transparency is frequently referred to as one of the advantages of blockchains. It is an
essential element of both a blockchain and any anti-corruption effort. All transactions in
an open blockchain are searchable. Every coin mined in a cryptocurrency and put in
circulation is accounted for. The verification mechanism is preventing they are spent
twice. Consensus among the nodes in the network ensures that the registered
transactions are correct.

Transparency is an essential element of both a

blockchain and any anti-corruption effort. Because
of their transparent nature, blockchains hold a lot of
promise.
Bitcoin exchanges in some countries need to comply with Know Your Customer (KYC)
regulations. This does not mean that the asset holder is revealed to all other users, but
that the exchange may have to identify customers for inspecting authorities or alert
authorities about suspicious transactions.

In government procurement systems, a blockchain ledger could record and secure key
events in a procurement process. This would prevent tampering and allow for audits of
the process, extending what already is available in open procurement systems. Property
and company registers, procurement data, or provenance records are areas considering
the use of blockchain technologies because of their transparent nature.

But the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) may prevent certain
information from being recorded in a transparent blockchain. Revealing identifying
data, such as information of an individual farmer in a transparent supply chain system,
may conflict with privacy regulations. In a competitive market, companies might also
prefer to protect information about their providers, clients, and other business relations.
A KPMG report for the OECD analyses the tension between transparency and privacy
and urges for some form of negotiation when choosing between open and closed
blockchains. In principle, a blockchain never forgets – as the records in a chain cannot
be removed without breaking the chain. Because of this immutable trait, the “right to be
forgotten,” also covered by GDPR regulations, may have implications for blockchain
projects that include personal identity information.

13
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

Ernst & Young claims to be able to meet these needs by enabling privacy even on public
blockchains. Their recent transaction protocol, zero-knowledge-proof (ZKP), promises
private transactions on a public blockchain.

Distributed or re-centralised power?

On September 15, 2008, just before the Bitcoin white paper first emerged, Lehman
Brothers filed for bankruptcy. The global financial crisis unfolded and trust in central,
financial institutions crumbled. The libertarian idea behind blockchain technology and
distributed ledgers is closely linked to the declining trust in these institutions.
Redistribution of power and the exclusion of central, controlling companies from the
financial system seemed to be a viable alternative to influential but unreliable players.

Fully distributed ledgers can, among other benefits, prevent powerful actors, such as
large corporations, from exclusively controlling a certain market or sector. This in turn,
can help prevent corruption. The Bitcoin blockchain was meant to create these
conditions. But after a decade, Bitcoin’s number of verifying nodes is decreasing,
clustering the power of the network in fewer entities. Some argue that “political power
on the blockchain is not truly distributed, but rather re-centralized in a ‘tech elite’ –
creating a new avenue for corruption through the abuse of their powers.”

Hash power, or the capacity to calculate cryptographic hashes, is a measure of power on

the Bitcoin network. According to a report about hash power in China, about 65% of the
global hash power resides in China due to affordable electricity and access to the latest
generation of hardware. Indeed, a major fear in the Bitcoin community is the threat of a
so-called 51% attack, where 51% of nodes collude in order to rewrite the chain and re-
distribute assets. This is not a realistic threat at the moment but might become one if the
number of nodes drops and gets concentrated in one particular country or is controlled
by a few companies.

Blockchain applications

Land rights
An article on a blockchain-based land titling project in the Republic of Georgia notes
that: “The challenge for countries without adequate land management is not simply to
build a land registry system but to create a system that is trustworthy, efficient, and free

14
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

of corruption.” Land and property rights are a combination of legislation and local,
historical customs. A register details who owns a particular piece of land, but also who
may access it at particular times of the year or under particular conditions. Seasonal
land rights, as those described in a study of Northern Kenya, are only one example of
how access and rights to land, water, pastures, hunting grounds, minerals, or forests are
a highly complex matter. Describing this intricate set of traditional rules and including
them in a modern registry is, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), a power game in which poor, rural communities are more likely to lose.
Governments may grant access to land for commercial or development purposes,
ignoring unwritten rights of rural communities. The 2010 FAO report on statutory
recognition of customary land rights investigates best practices on how to formalise
century-old informal rights.

Once there is agreement on laws and regulations and trustworthy institutions to execute
them, once disputes over land rights are settled, once maps and agreements are entered
into the ledger, only then a timestamped proof of rights may be suitable to be registered
in an immutable, distributed ledger such as the blockchain.

The land register of Georgia

Georgia is frequently mentioned as a country with a land registry residing on a
blockchain. This is slightly misleading. When the company Bitfury approached the
government of Georgia offering a test to adopt blockchain technology as a security
measure for its registry, the land-management system was already far developed.

As shown in an Openaid graphic, international donors contributed significantly to

support the development of government and civil society in Georgia in the last decade.
This included creating strong, non-corrupt institutions. In 2004, the National Agency of
Public Registry (NAPR) was established under the Ministry of Justice to reform and
digitise the system for land management. Legislative, institutional, administrative, and
technological sectors were modernised and digitised. What was known to be a slow,
bureaucratic, and corruption-prone country has now become a model for many. Georgia
is seventh on the World Bank Doing Business Ranking and has climbed significantly on
the UN E-Government Development Index as well as on the Transparency International
(TI) CPI index. And the climb started long before blockchain arrived in the country.

In 2014, ten years after the modernisation of land management started, the San
Francisco-based company BitFury established a Bitcoin mining facility in Georgia,
betting on cheap electricity and favourable tax regulations. The company established
similar bitcoin mining operations in Norway, Iceland, and Canada for the same reasons.
As described in a New York Times article, Bitcoin mining turned into a valued activity

15
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

in Georgia and thousands became familiar with the technology – for a while there was
more money in bitcoin mining than farming.

In 2016, BitFury signed a contract with NAPR to design and manage a public,
permissioned blockchain residing on the Bitcoin blockchain, which would secure and
timestamp notarised documents and contracts. Land and property owners would thereby
have immutable proof of ownership and transactions, and constant access to their
records through an encrypted (hashed) entry on the blockchain. Later on, BitFury
developed a new blockchain with a modified security protocol. In doing so, they also
lowered the consumption of electricity to run the system. The Exonum blockchain is in
fact able to handle far more transactions per second than the Bitcoin blockchain.
Exonum is now applied for securing proof of ownership to land in Georgia.

The transition from a paper-based to a digital land rights registry would not have been
possible had it not been for the high quality of data developed over more than a decade.
According to the previously cited article on blockchain-based projects in the country,
“the high quality of the NAPR data was a consequence of the political reforms pursued
by the Republic of Georgia before the project.”

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and its Blockchain Lab
are some of the supporters of the reform project in Georgia, and emphasise political will
and adaptation of regulations as important elements for its success.

Blockchain-based pilot projects

The Swedish Mapping, Cadastre and Land Registration Authority has, together with
private sector companies, experimented with blockchain and smart contracts to improve
real estate transactions and mortgage deed processes. These processes are slow and
involve multiple entities such as banks, brokers, and the notary office. Converting to
smart contracts and a blockchain-secured process would save a significant amount of
time and cost in a real estate transaction process. Sweden aspires to being at the
forefront of technological development. Their land registration system dates back to
1628 and has, for centuries, been considered a positive example of a system capable of
innovating and improving services.

16
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

The Swedish land registry

Georgia’s land registry resides on a blockchain.

High quality data has made this possible, perhaps
not dissimilar to the depicted 18th-
century Swedish registry page (Photo: Swedish
National Archives).

Full implementation of a blockchain test performed in 2018 will demand further

developments. The blockchain technology will have to match the need for a functioning
real estate transaction system and align with other government databases and with EU
regulations, such as those outlined in the GDPR. There are legal considerations and a
need for new legislation to be in place for digital contracts, digital signatures, and other
aspects of a totally digital real estate trade system. The project is now in preparation for
political considerations and decisions.

Blockchain-based land registries have been suggested for several countries, including
Honduras, Brazil and Ghana. In 2015, USAID supported a project in Honduras, aiming
to solve conflicts, disputes, and fraudulent appropriation of land. But the prerequisites
for implementing a blockchain were not in place. Presidential elections in the country
put the project on hold only a couple of years after its initiation.

The government-run tech company SERPRO investigated the use of blockchain to

replace Brazil’s partly paper-based and fragmented land records, but an internet search
could not even locate updated information on the project.

Similarly, blockchain was proposed as a solution for the land registry of Ghana, but not
much came from the project “besides the fact that the Ghanaian government signed the
MoU in 2018,” as reported during the 2019 OECD Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity
Forum.

17
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

Digital Identities

Estonia’s X-Road
Estonia was among the first countries to issue a digital identity authenticated by the
government. With the mandatory ID card, citizens can access government services and
personal data residing in both private and government databases. The X-road software
links up with and gives access to the e-services. The project started in the 1990s, during
the rebuild of government institutions after the liberation from the Soviet Union. The
intention was to design a cost-efficient governance system, giving digital access to
government services to all citizens. Another objective was to provide increased
transparency and accountability. There are separate databases for separate sectors, such
as law, policing, health, voting, and education. Citizens are given access through the X-
road, which is the “digital highway” providing interoperability between connected
services. The connections are end-to-end encrypted, and hashes are used as identifiers
for accessed information. The Nordic Institute for Interoperability Solutions (NIIS)
clarifies that the X-Road is not based on blockchain technology, rectifying statements
made in a New Yorker article. Encryption and cryptographic hashing to link data
elements predates Bitcoin and the blockchain.

Estonia is also the first country to issue an e-residency, where anyone who wants to
register a business in the country can apply for a digital citizenship. Since the late
1990s, the country has climbed steadily in international rankings, such as the Ease of
doing business ranking or the Corruption Perception Index (CPI). With a 2018 score of
73 on the CPI, Estonia is among the twenty least corrupt countries in the world.

India’s digital ID
The largest biometric ID project of its kind is the Aadhaar digital ID project in India.
Officially, registration is voluntary. However, certain programmes, like thekerosene
subsidy or education services, are not accessible without it. Aadhaar is a 12-digit
number issued at random by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). To
obtain the number, individuals need to submit demographic information (such as name,
age, and gender), as well as biometric data (ten fingerprints, two iris scans, and facial
photography). The private company IndiaStack is powering most Aadhaar applications
and wants to spread the technology globally. Some question the close connection
between government entities and private interests. Others fear that access to these
registries may become a powerful tool for surveillance. Another Indian entity,
resembling the Estonian X-road, is OnGrid. It gives users secure access to their records,
such as educational certificates or employment verifications.

18
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

Self-sovereign identity
The Sustainable Development Goal SDG 16.9 aims to provide a legal identity for all,
including birth registration. Several pilots and initiatives have been launched to
contribute to this goal, and blockchain technologies are being considered as a tool to
provide a digital ID.

ID2020 is an alliance that includes companies like Accenture, Microsoft, Gavi, and
IDEO and is supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. The alliance works towards
providing a digital ID for the 1,1 billion people who lack proof of identity. The ID2020
manifesto states that “… Individuals need a trusted, verifiable way to prove who they
are, both in the physical world and online.” ID2020 explores if “cryptographically
secure, decentralized systems — could provide greater privacy protection for users,
while also allowing for portability and verifiability.” In early 2020, the first version of
their technical requirements was published online, with an invite for stakeholders to
comment and give input. The project stresses that “individuals must have control over
their own digital identities, including how personal data is collected, used, and shared.”

Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI) is the idea behind ID2020. Its genesis are the challenges a
citizen of the modern, connected world has in maintaining a myriad of online identities.
In contrast to the centrally stored identities in the Indian Adhaar system, SSI is based on
concepts derived from the structure of the internet – where any single machine can
connect with any other. To be truly global, such a system has to be based on agreed
upon identification standards. The most current one is the Decentralized Identifier
(DID) developed by the World Wide Web consortium and supported by major
companies and organisations, including the ID2020 alliance.

Blockchains for humanitarian aid

The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has compiled a full set of tools for collecting
biographic and biometric information for identity systems aimed at providing refugees
with access to assistance. The PRIMES ecosystem is interoperable and covers a whole
chain of services, from registration of refugees to cash-based assistance.

The World Food Programme (WFP) included the ID part of the toolbox in a project
known as WFP Building Blocks, serving Syrian refugees in Jordan camps. Building
Blocks is built on a private, permissioned blockchain and tied to the UNHCR
identification system. Moving the “cash for food” programme over to their own system
saved WFP close to one billion US$ in fees previously paid to credit card companies for
ATM cash transfers. In addition, WFP now has a record of every single transaction,

19
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

although not linked to the individual. The project has passed the pilot study phase and is
in production for more than 100,000 refugees in Jordan.

Blockchains for financial inclusion

Kiva, a crowdfunding non-profit organisation, has signed a contract with the
government of Sierra Leone to provide its citizens with access to Kiva’s micro-finance
platform. The organisation will provide a digital ID based on the voter registration
database created for the 2018 elections. Each individual will carry a physical ID card in
addition to a digital wallet, preferably installed on a smart phone giving access to micro
loans. This ID will connect to a distributed ledger, the Kiva protocol, used for
documentation of the user’s credit history. The Kiva protocol can normally be accessed
via a smart phone app. In Sierra Leone, the plan is to make the Kiva protocol available
at service points and in banks, since it is unlikely that all users will own a smartphone.
The UN has injected a total of 15 million US$ into the project.

Sierra Leone has a population of 7,9 million and as many as 6,9 million mobile
connections. According to GSMA intelligence, 54% of the population has access to a
mobile broadband, but only 9% uses the internet, which tells us something about digital
literacy. Two-thirds of individuals over 15 are illiterate according to the Human
Development Index and 52% are living below the poverty line of 1,9 US$ per day.

An article published by frontiers in Blockchain takes a close look at both the Kiva
project in Sierra Leone and the WFP Building Blocks project for Syrian refugees,
stating that “as demonstrated by the Kiva and WFP case studies, identity is inherently
use case dependent. Interoperability and standardization will be important for scale, but
the success of a particular identity application will depend on how its deployment is
tailored to the use cases and local conditions.”

The article provides an in-depth discussion of digital identities, self-sovereign identities

and blockchain technologies and notes that “a true self-sovereign identity system would
require a certain level of infrastructure, primarily high penetration of affordable
smartphones that can securely store private keys and reliable connectivity.” The phones
needed for the system are definitely not affordable, and in fact cost approximately 250
US$.

A farmer in Sierra Leone would ideally own a smartphone to accomplish the task of
borrowing money to buy seeds. Without it, the farmer would have to rely on the Kiva
office, the service point, or a bank to obtain digital credentials and eventually access
funds or loans. Having to rely on others for help in this scenario could create
opportunities for corrupt mechanisms such as bribery.

20
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

Grassroots Economics in Kenya has a slightly different strategy. Based on cooperatives

in local communities, microloans and a local “currency” are available for interactions
between small-scale industries. Since 2010, the concept has developed into seven
different currencies in different locations in Kenya.

Remittances and global transactions

The SDGs also cover remittances and their positive impacts on families, communities
and countries. Transfers using cryptocurrencies may reduce transaction fees charged by
traditional brokers. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), there are
160 million migrant workers in the world. Most of them regularly send money home.
Borderless cryptocurrencies would suit their needs perfectly. In Hong Kong, migrant
workers can convert their funds into a cryptocurrency when sending money to their
home country, where it then converts into the currency of the receiving country.
Regulatory uncertainties and liquidity issues are obstacles in what could become a large
industry. In the example above, crypto exchanges eventually would require transferring
fiat currency between countries to balance their cash stock.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), in collaboration with J.P. Morgan and
Temasek, is looking into similar challenges, not for migrant workers, but for the
business market. Project Ubin is a pilot in which blockchain technologies were used for
financial transactions. The first step was to migrate a certain volume of tokenised
Singapore Dollars (SGD) onto a distributed ledger. Backed by an equivalent amount of
SGD in custody, the digitised dollars were used to verify how digital currencies can be
utilised in international transactions. As a result of the project, there is now a
blockchain-based prototype “that enables payments to be carried out in different
currencies on the same network.”

The strategy of Ripple is also to work with governments and regulations attempting to
modernise the global flow of finances which has “more in common with the outdated
postal system than this generation’s internet.” Established in 2012, Ripple is based on
“the idea of using blockchain technology and digital assets to enable financial
institutions to send money across borders, instantly, reliably and for fractions of a
penny.” Their blockchain platform and digital asset, XRP, promise to facilitate faster
and cheaper international transactions. The financial industry wants to rationalise
international transactions by employing blockchain-based solutions, but without letting
go of their role as mediators.

21
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

A thorough analysis of the remittance market and blockchain observes that: “As
existing and incumbent financial players are flocking toward blockchain technologies
for clearing and settlement of payments, existing power structures can be challenged but
also reinvented and reinforced.”

Regulating the flow of crypto assets

According to the crypto-investigators at Chainanalysis, illicit financing and money
laundering transfers added up to billions in 2019. The company tracks flows of funds,
and due to the transparency of cryptocurrency networks they are able to get an overview
of the flow. While they are not able to get details of the sender or recipient, they can
detect directions and flows of potentially illegal transactions by following crypto-
exchanges with a dodgy reputation. “The need to launder funds is the common thread
among all the forms of crypto crime we analyze.”

That said, anonymous transactions are not necessarily illegal. Wikileaks, which was
blocked by banks after the exposure of diplomatic cables (Cablegate) in 2011, invites
donors to use cryptocurrencies or use a proxy organisation for donations. Exactly the
same is done by militant Palestinian groups asking for financial support to “circumvent
international laws and sanctions.” An FDD Long War Journal article documents how
militant groups instruct their donors to use Bitcoins through social media campaigns.

The EU Fifth Anti Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD) came into force in January
2020. According to the compliance company, ComplyAdvantage, the new directive now
treats cryptocurrencies and providers of wallets and exchanges as it does the ordinary
financial market, including the obligation to submit reports on suspicious activity.
Financial Intelligence Units have the authority to obtain the identity of cryptocurrency
owners, since they have to declare assets for tax purposes. The Financial Action Task
Force (FATF) is developing procedures and tools for supervision of Virtual Assets
Service Providers (VASPs) and monitoring how they comply with KYC/AML
regulations. Since virtual assets, such as a cryptocurrency, are inherently global,
international collaboration on standards, regulations, and supervision is needed. The
OECD is creating awareness among tax auditors on how to discover possible money
laundering, tax evasion, or terrorist financing involving cryptocurrencies. Transactions
of cryptocurrencies are still possible without revealing your identity in some countries.
As KYC and AML regulations force gatekeepers and crypto exchanges to register the
real identities of account holders, the hope is to detect some of the illegal funds and
prevent cryptocurrencies from furthering their reputation as a tool to finance crime.

22
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

Blockchain, provenance, and logistics tracking

Immutable blockchain records should hold correct data. When they represent physical
goods, the relation between the record and the physical object should be immutable as
well.

The Gübelin Gem Lab has developed a technique to invisibly tag gemstones with nano-
sized particles at the mine. The particles penetrate the stone and traces of this “DNA”
are identifiable also after cutting and polishing. The information on origin and
ownership of the stone is logged on the Provenance Proof Blockchain, an initiative for
documentation of gemstones. The ledger is built on the Everledger blockchain which
also holds projects on minerals, luxury articles, and art. De Beers has a similar project
with the Boston Consulting Group. Provenance, authenticity, and traceability of millions
of diamonds reside on the customised platform Tracr. The project is credited with
combatting blood diamonds and restricting illegitimate stones used for terrorist
financing.

Bait to plate is a pilot project residing on the Ethereum platform to investigate how trust
and traceability can be achieved in the tuna fish supply chain. The pilot performed in
2018 by Consensys and supported by WWF in New Zealand, Australia, and Fiji aimed
to demonstrate traceability of the valuable Yellowfin Tuna. Each fish was tagged with a
radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag and could be followed on its journey to the
restaurant by a journalist from Wired.

According to IBM, food fraud is increasing due to lack of transparency, accountability,

and effective regulations. But customers are increasingly focused on the source and
production processes of their food. Through the Food Trust blockchain, IBM teamed up
with the food retail chains to track products such as shrimp from India and lettuce from
Arizona. According to Coindesk, more than 80 brands have joined the experiment,
including giants like Nestlé, Unilever, Carrefour, and Dole Food. Producers delivering
to these chains are encouraged to register their shipments on the blockchain. Walmart is
one of the first companies to demand registration for fresh leaf products.

But supply chain management still suffers from lack of standards to support
interoperability. A Gartner press release predicts that most blockchain-based supply
chain initiatives will suffer from fatigue. “A combination of technology immaturity,
lack of standards, overly ambitious scope and a misunderstanding of how blockchain
could, or should, actually help the supply chain” will inevitably cause the market to
experience blockchain fatigue.

23
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

“Agreeing to standards” is at the basis of the TradeLens project initiated by IBM and the
shipping company Maersk to log and share shipping transaction and event data. Maersk
alone controls about 25% of the container traffic across the oceans and is able by itself
to create an ecosystem of data. Other major ocean carriers hesitated to partner with a
blockchain initiated by their main competitor. But eventually six of the world’s largest
carriers joined the consortium, followed now by port authorities who are signing in on
the same platform. TradeLens may become a standard tool for tracking shipping
containers.

Digital literacy as a prerequisite to harness the

blockchain’s potential
Blockchain technologies and cryptocurrencies can be deployed as helpful tools in anti-
corruption projects. The technology can redistribute power from centralised institutions
to individuals. Its code is a catalyst for trust among participants, who are fully
responsible for their own assets. In an open cryptocurrency blockchain there is no
“password reset” function, no central entity to go to. There needs to be a discussion
outside the tech community on fundamental features of the technology as they relate to
trust, immutability, and the possible shifts of power.

The success and failure of blockchain-based projects depend on the surrounding

infrastructure and the social or political context rather than on the technology itself. Still
in its early days, blockchain technologies lack stringent standards and an agreed upon
terminology. Decision makers should therefore fully understand this emerging
technology to gauge its applicability in different contexts.

Particularly in developing countries, it is important to understand if the prerequisites of

connectivity, digitised data, and digital literacy exist before launching blockchain-based
projects.

Methodology
Close to three hundred articles, reports, and media posts helped identify key features of
the technology, which may support decision makers and anti-corruption practitioners.
The identification of core elements of the technology enabled reflections around trust,
immutability, and transparency, which are key features of the blockchain. A few case

24
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

studies highlight in which contexts the technology is likely to be most valuable. These
questions guided the research:

• What are the key aspects of the technologies that will enable decision makers and
stakeholders to have a qualified opinion on the possible application of blockchain
technologies?
• To what extent are blockchain technologies applicable to anti-corruption initiatives?
• Are there examples of best practices in developing countries?

25
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

References
Abadi, J., and Brunnermeier, M. 2018. Blockchain Economics. National Bureau of
Economic Research, 1–53.

Aggarwal, N., and Floridi, L. 2019. The Opportunities and Challenges of Blockchain in
the Fight against Government Corruption. 19th General Activity Report, GRECO 82
(March): 22–25.

Alderman, L. 2019. Despite Bitcoinʼs Dive, a Former Soviet Republic Is Still Betting
Big on It. New York Times.

Allison, I. 2019. World’s Second-Largest Grocer Joins IBM Food Trust Blockchain.
Coindesk.

Araujo, F. 2019. Bitcoin v bolivar: Can cryptos save Venezuela. Raconteur.

Associate French Press (AFP). 2020. Maduro bids to revive Venezuela’s ‘petro’
cryptocurrency. France 24.

BBC News. 2019. Facebook’s Libra should be blocked in Europe, France Says. BBC
News.

Benbunan-Finch, R., and Castellanos, A. 2018. Digitization of Land Records: From

Paper to Blockchain. Association for Information Systems.

Binance. 2020. The World’s Leading Cryptocurrency Exchange. Website

Binance Academy. 2020. Proof of Authority Explained. Website.

Blockgenic. 2018. Different Blockchain Consensus Mechanisms. Hackernoon.

Bloomberg. 2019. Xi’s Blockchain Push Triggers Frenzy in China Technology Stocks.
Bnn Bloomberg.

Brody, Paul. 2020. How Public Blockchains Are Making Private Blockchains Obsolete.
EY Global.

26
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

Chainalysis. 2020. Money Laundering in Cryptocurrency: How Criminals Moved

Billions in 2019. Insights.

Chen, J. 2019. Fiat Money. Investopedia.

———. 2020. Escrow Agreement. Investopedia.

———. 2019. Know Your Client (KYC). Investopedia.

Coinbase. 2020. Top 50 Cryptocurrency Prices. Website.

Cointelegraph. 2020. What is Ethereum: Guide for beginners. Website.

———. 2020. What are smart contracts: Guide for beginners. Website.

Corasaniti, N., Frenkel, S., and Perlroth, N. 2020. App Used to Tabulate Votes Is Said to
Have Been Inadequately Tested. The New York Times.

Cuckier, K. 2019. The meaning of the blockchain. The Economist.

De, N., and Dale, B. 2019. Visa, Mastercard, eBay, Stripe Follow PayPal in Quitting
Facebook’s Libra Project. Coindesk.

Digiconosmist. 2020. Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. Website.

Eder, G. 2019. Digital Transformation: Blockchain and Land Titles. 2019 OECD Global
Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum.

e-estonia. 2020. What is e-Residency. Website.

———. 2020. X-road. Website.

———. 2020. X-road not to be confused with blockchain. Website.

Eriksson, F. 2017. The Rapid Economic Liberalisation and Ruthless Fight against
Corruption in Georgia. U4 Practitioner Experience Note.

Ethereum. 2020. Ethereum. Website.

27
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

European Central Bank. 2019. Exploring anonymity in central bank digital currencies.
In Focus, Issue no 4.

European Commission. 2020. Anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing.

Website.

Fairley, P. 2019. Ethereum plans to cut its absurd energy consumption by 99

percent. IEEE Spectrum.

FATF. 2019. Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach: Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset
Service Providers.

Frankenfield, J. 2018. Proof of Work. Investopedia.

———. 2019. Proof of Stake. Investopedia.

———. 2019. 51% Attack. Investopedia.

Ganeriwalla, A., Casey, M., Shrikrishna, P., Bender, J.P., and Gstettner, S. 2018. DOES
YOUR SUPPLY CHAIN NEED A BLOCKCHAIN?.

Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., and Straub, D. W. 2003. Trust and TAM in Online Shopping:
An Integrated Model. MIS Q. 27 (1): 51–90.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 2016. Regulations. Official Journal of the
European Union.

Gerard, D. 2017. The World Food Programme’s much-publicised “blockchain” has one
participant — i.e., it’s a database. Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain.

Godbole, O. 2019. Highest in 2 Years: 65% of Bitcoin Hash Power is in China, Report
Finds. Coindesk.

Graglia, J.M., and Mellon, C. 2018. Blockchain and property in 2018: At the end of the
beginning. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 12(1-2), pp.90-116.

Graglia, J. M., Mellon, C., and Akin, E. 2017. Prerequisites for Incorporating
Blockchain into a Registry. New America Blog. 2017.

28
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

Haber, S., and Stornetta, W.S. 1990. How to time-stamp a digital document.
In Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptography (pp. 437-455). Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg.

Hayes, A. 2019. Stablecoin. Investopedia.

Heller, N. 2017. Estonia, The Digital Republic. The New Yorker.

Higginson, M., Nadeau, M., and Rajgopal, K. 2018. Blockchains-Occam-Problem.

McKinsey Insights, 41–47.

Hyperledger. 2020. Hyperledger Fabric. Website.

ID2020. 2019. ID2020 Launches technical certification mark. Medium.

———. 2019. ID2020 Technical Requirements. Website.

———. 2020. We need to get digital ID right. Website.

IndiaStack. 2020. What is India Stack. Website.

International Labour Organization (ILO). 2018. New ILO figures show 164 million
people are migrant workers. Website.

Jeffries, A. 2018. ‘Blockchain’ Is Meaningless. The Verge.

Jospe, C. 2019. When It Comes to Blockchains and Energy Usage. Nori Blog.

Kagan, J. 2020. Digital Wallet. Investopedia.

Kempe, M. 2016. The Land Registry in the Blockchain. Kairos Future.

Kempe, M. 2018. Blockchain tested live – can save billions for house purchasers and
mortgage borrowers. Kairos Future.

Kim, C. 2019. From Cardano to Ethereum, 2020 Could Be Deciding Year for Proof-of-
Stake. Coindesk.

Kiva. 2020. The journey of a Kiva Loan. Website.

29
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

Kivimäki, P. 2018. There Is No Blockchain Technology in the X-Road. Nordic Institute

for Interoperability Solutions.

Knight, R. S. 2010. Statutory Recognition of Customary Land Rights in Africa An

Investigation into Best Practices for Lawmaking and Implementation. FAO Legislative
Study.

Kuhn, D. 2019. European Competition Watchdog Fears Libra’s ‘Closed Economy.’

Coindesk.

Lengoiboni, M. 2011. Pastoralists Seasonal Land Rights in Land Administration: A

Study of Northern Kenya. Wageningen University.

Li, K. 2019. The Blockchain Scalability Problem and the Race for Visa-Like
Transaction Speed. Hackernoon.

Libra. The Libra mission. 2019. Website.

Lucian, A. 2019.The Top Cryptocurrency Exchanges That Don’t Require KYC

Verification. Beincrypto.

Mak, R., Sweeney, P. 2019. Breakingviews – China’s e-yuan will be more cryptic than
crypto. Reuters.

Marinoff, N. 2018. Bitfury Expands To Norway With 35$ Million Bitcoin Data Center.
Bitcoin Magazine.

Matsakis, L. 2019. Following a Tuna from Fiji to Brooklyn—on the Blockchain. Wired.

Mercy Corps. 2020. A Revolution in Trust: Distributed Ledger Technology in Relief

and Development. Website.

Monetary Authority of Singapore. 2019. Project Ubin: Central Bank Digital Money
using Distributed Ledger Technology. Website.

Möhlmann, M., and Geissinger, A. 2018. Trust in the Sharing Economy: Platform-
Mediated Peer Trust. Cambridge Handbook of the Law of the Sharing Economy,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Nakamoto, S. 2019. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Manubot.

30
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

OECD. 2018. OECD Blockchain Primer. OECD.

———. 2019. The Policy Environment for Blockchain Innovation and Adoption: 2019
OECD Global Blockchain Policy Forum Summary Report. OECD Blockchain Policy
Series.

OECD and KPMG. 2019. Is There a Role for Blockchain in Responsible Supply
Chains?

Omale, G. 2019. Gartner Predicts 90% of Blockchain-Based Supply Chain Initiatives

Will Suffer ‘Blockchain Fatigue’ by 2023. Gartner Press Release.

Openaid. 2020. Openaid aid to Georgia graphic. Website.

Palmer, D. 2019. IBM, Maersk’s Blockchain Platform TradeLens Is Shipping to Russia.

Coindesk.

———. 2020. Oman’s Largest Port Joins Blockchain Shipping Platform TradeLens.
Coindesk.

Rauchs, M., Blandin, A., Bear, K., and Mckeon, S. 2019. 2nd Global Enterprise
Blockchain Benchmarking Study. Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.

Ray, S. 2017. Cryptographic Hashing. Hackernoon.

Reiff, N. 2020. Blockchain Explained. Investopedia.

Rella, L. 2019. Blockchain Technologies and Remittances: From Financial Inclusion to

Correspondent Banking. Frontiers in Blockchain 2.

Rinne, A. 2019. 4 Big Trends for the Sharing Economy in 2019. World Economic
Forum. 2019.

Ripple. 2020. Instantly Move Money to All Corners of the World. Website.

Santiso, C. 2019. Here's How Technology Is Changing the Corruption Game. World
Economic Forum.

Sathe, G. 2018. After Beta-Testing On A Billion Indians, The Tech Behind Aadhaar Is
Going Global. Huffington Post.

31
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

Schneier, B. 2019. There's no good reason to trust blockchain technology. Wired.

Senou, O. 2019. Tracking Fiji’s tuna with blockchain technology. CTA Blog.

Shang, Q., and Price, A. 2019. A Blockchain-Based Land Titling Project in the Republic
of Georgia: Rebuilding Public Trust and Lessons for Future Pilot Projects. Innovations:
Technology, Governance, Globalization 12 (3–4): 72–78.

Shrier, D., Wu, W., and Pentland, A. 2016. Blockchain & infrastructure (identity, data
security). Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Connection Science, 1(3), pp.1-19.

Sloane, R. 2020. Conflict Minerals and Child Labour: Enabling Better Business with
Blockchain Traceability. Hyperledger Blog.

Smartmatic. 2019. Civil and voter registration Sierra Leone 2017. Website.

Sveriges Riksbank. 2020. The Riksbank’s e-krona pilot. Sveriges Riksbank.

Thaker, A. 2018. The New Oil. Caravan Magazine.

The Economic Times. 2017. Aadhaar mandatory for kerosene subsidy, Atal Pension
Yojana.

Tobin, A., and Reed, D. 2016. The Inevitable Rise of Self-Sovereign Identity. Sovrin
Foundation.

Transparency International. 2018. Estonia. Website.

Truzman, J. 2020. Gaza-based militant group Mujahidin Brigades publishes series “The
Beating Heart of a Nation.” Long War Journal.

———. 2020. Palestinian militant groups appeal for Bitcoin donations to promote
jihad. Long War Journal.

UN Development Programme. 2020. Human Development Reports. Website.

UN Sustainable Development Goals. 2019. SDG 16. United Nations.

UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). 2020. Registration and Identity Management. Website.

32
 U4 ISSUE 2020:7

Unique Identification Authority of India. 2019. What is Aadhaar. Government of India.

Uslaner, E. M. 2015. Trust, Political. International Encyclopedia of the Social &

Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition. Second Edi. Vol. 24. Elsevier.

W3C. 2020. Decentralized Identifiers. Website.

Walch, A. 2017. The Path of the Blockchain Lexicon (and the Law). Review of Banking
& Financial Law 36: 713–66.

Walter, C., Gamble, R., Alarcon, G., Jessup, S., and Calhoun, C. 2017. Developing a
mechanism to study code trustworthiness.

Wang, F., and De Filippi, P. 2020. Self-Sovereign Identity in a Globalized World:

Credentials-Based Identity Systems as a Driver for Economic Inclusion. Frontiers in
Blockchain 2 (January): 1–22.

Weizsäcker, F. v., Eggler, S., and Atarim, E. 2019. Land Registries on a Distributed
Ledger. GIZ. Berlin: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).

Wood, M. 2019. European Central Bank confirms exploring digital Euro as retail,
wholesale CBDC. Ledger Insights.

World Bank Group. 2019. Doing Business 2019. The World Bank.

World Food Programme (WFP). 2020. Building Blocks Blockchain for Zero Hunger.
Website.

Yu, X. 2018. China to stamp out cryptocurrency trading completely with ban on foreign
platforms. South China Morning Post.

Zaharia, M., and Kim, D. 2018. Bitcoin start-ups in Asia take aim at remittances market.
Reuters.

33