Is this like Uber and AirBnB all over? They don't want to be a bank just like Uber doesn't want to be Taxi (means following regulations about insurance, accessibility etc) and AirBnB doesn't want to be a hotel nor a landlord?
In some countries, regulators simply point to these companies and say "Ok, so you're driving people around for money thus you are a taxi? How would we not regulate you as a taxi?".
And this should apply for a bank or financial institution that tries to avoid banking regulations through technical means, no?
Indeed! After, a distributed database made for financial systems, that could prevent double spending, provide immutability of the data, includes a mechanism of authentication, with some voting power distributed between a quorum of financial of institutions... it's actually exactly what Reth is.
To have deployed some blockchain layer 1 nodes, it's actually quite similar than deploying a distributed database.
Nowadays, it's actually just easier to fork geth/reth or other engine, and just deploy it. There are so many doc and tooling that can then be reused.
It sounds like different levels of influence/control/responsibility to me.
Fancy validator selection sounds like the individual financial institutions are still responsible for managing and maintaining their nodes, which gives them a fair (as in balanced not fair as in a lot) amount of liability/responsibility/control.
A distributed database, afaik, while geographically distributed, entails more centralization of power/control.
"EVM-compatible, built on Reth" => they're essentially building a private Ethereum fork with a fancy validator selection process.
Couldn't they just get these benefits (predictable fees, fast settlement) by ... running a database between these financial institutions?
If Stripe controls the validator set (even indirectly), then ... just a distributed database with extra steps, no?