This was one of the interviews that made me reflect the most, and one of the few where I truly felt outside my sphere of expertise, as I went back and forth with David Garrett, who kindly answered all my questions.
The way he articulates the problem and his vision for the future is compelling: greater transparency, better tracking and stronger provenance all promise to allocate resources more efficiently, move wine more intelligently and increase liquidity in the market. None of that is controversial.
What I keep questioning is whether we really need a formal deed of ownership, or whether much of this information already exists but simply is not recorded or shared. In other words: what if the problem is not how information is captured, but the willingness to capture it in the first place? Why do so many producers and merchants treat wine as if it were a fungible asset when it is not? And is there enough awareness among customers that this is a problem to put real pressure on producers and merchants to change?
I looked into this 12 years ago and nothing has happened since then because blockchain for physical items solves nothing. The whole point of a blockchain is that it is trustless, yet in this case you have to trust that those editing the blockchain create honest entries about the physical state of wine. Restricting this to trusted parties means you've completely defeated the point of a blockchain and basically just have a centralised database, but with added complexity and inefficiency.
Love how the Digital Cork model tries to bridge trustlessness with practical adoption. The provenance tiers (ex-chateau, vetted partners, private) are smart, they acceppt that trust has levels rather than being binary. But I keep coming back to the same question you raise, blockchain adds structure for recording chnages but doesn't solve the incentive gap for actually recording them in the frist place.
Another solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Sure there has been some counterfeiting, but due diligence, common sense and using high quality verified merchants and traders within the bonded system will eradicate 99.9% of any issues when buying fine wine stocks.
Thanks, Reece, for sharing your view. I also believe that the information is ‘already there’. But at the same time, don’t you think that if this information were more immediate – instead of having to dig through emails, invoices and PDFs – it would speed up transactions, increase transparency and, as a result, improve liquidity thanks to a more efficent trading system?
There are many frustrating things that could improve our marketplace, make it more efficient and speed it up. Wine is a fragile and tangible product, has storage, transport and some counterfeit issues, like many luxury goods. It doesnt like heat, light and movement. Its fine to think that you can apply a deed of ownership to a bottle or case of wine anywhere in the world, but who is then going to regulate and enforce this blockchain application, who is going to store the wine, protect it and insure it, perform checks and verify the blockchain plus administer the transactions globally? Wine ultimately needs to move at some point to get in somebody's glass somewhere. You would need a central body and infrastructure to oversee the whole market for these transactions which both transactional buyers and sellers feel comfortable with financially, and trust the process wholly. This would have a huge cost and needs to be paid for by somebody. You also have different global tax regimes which need to be accounted for and which need to be administered by somebody for cross border movements. In principle, I agree blockchain and tech could help in some way erase some doubts and maybe speed up things, but I'd like to see a business plan which shows how this works end to end, how it is funded and by whom, which will then demonstate that it's achievable across the industry, not just an idealist notion. For now sounds very conceptual without that element.
This was one of the interviews that made me reflect the most, and one of the few where I truly felt outside my sphere of expertise, as I went back and forth with David Garrett, who kindly answered all my questions.
The way he articulates the problem and his vision for the future is compelling: greater transparency, better tracking and stronger provenance all promise to allocate resources more efficiently, move wine more intelligently and increase liquidity in the market. None of that is controversial.
What I keep questioning is whether we really need a formal deed of ownership, or whether much of this information already exists but simply is not recorded or shared. In other words: what if the problem is not how information is captured, but the willingness to capture it in the first place? Why do so many producers and merchants treat wine as if it were a fungible asset when it is not? And is there enough awareness among customers that this is a problem to put real pressure on producers and merchants to change?
I looked into this 12 years ago and nothing has happened since then because blockchain for physical items solves nothing. The whole point of a blockchain is that it is trustless, yet in this case you have to trust that those editing the blockchain create honest entries about the physical state of wine. Restricting this to trusted parties means you've completely defeated the point of a blockchain and basically just have a centralised database, but with added complexity and inefficiency.
Love how the Digital Cork model tries to bridge trustlessness with practical adoption. The provenance tiers (ex-chateau, vetted partners, private) are smart, they acceppt that trust has levels rather than being binary. But I keep coming back to the same question you raise, blockchain adds structure for recording chnages but doesn't solve the incentive gap for actually recording them in the frist place.
Another solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Sure there has been some counterfeiting, but due diligence, common sense and using high quality verified merchants and traders within the bonded system will eradicate 99.9% of any issues when buying fine wine stocks.
Thanks, Reece, for sharing your view. I also believe that the information is ‘already there’. But at the same time, don’t you think that if this information were more immediate – instead of having to dig through emails, invoices and PDFs – it would speed up transactions, increase transparency and, as a result, improve liquidity thanks to a more efficent trading system?
There are many frustrating things that could improve our marketplace, make it more efficient and speed it up. Wine is a fragile and tangible product, has storage, transport and some counterfeit issues, like many luxury goods. It doesnt like heat, light and movement. Its fine to think that you can apply a deed of ownership to a bottle or case of wine anywhere in the world, but who is then going to regulate and enforce this blockchain application, who is going to store the wine, protect it and insure it, perform checks and verify the blockchain plus administer the transactions globally? Wine ultimately needs to move at some point to get in somebody's glass somewhere. You would need a central body and infrastructure to oversee the whole market for these transactions which both transactional buyers and sellers feel comfortable with financially, and trust the process wholly. This would have a huge cost and needs to be paid for by somebody. You also have different global tax regimes which need to be accounted for and which need to be administered by somebody for cross border movements. In principle, I agree blockchain and tech could help in some way erase some doubts and maybe speed up things, but I'd like to see a business plan which shows how this works end to end, how it is funded and by whom, which will then demonstate that it's achievable across the industry, not just an idealist notion. For now sounds very conceptual without that element.
hello