The future of finance belongs to open source

[Hydrogen]

The Fintech Open Source Foundation has found banks and other financial organizations are no longer just using open-source software, they're building and sharing it.

At the Open Source in Finance Forum (OSFF) in New York City, the Fintech Open Source Foundation (FINOS) Dec. 8 announced the results of its 2022 State of Open Source in Financial Services Survey. The results were -- to no one's surprise -- that financial companies are now largely embracing open-source software.

While crypto-currency pushes blockchain technologies' limits and makes the headlines, financial services companies are known for their conservative approach to software development.

That doesn't mean they've been unfriendly to Linux and open source. It's been quite the opposite. For example, high-frequency trading was born from open-source software in the late 2000s, and in the same years, the world's stock exchanges moved to Linux. What's been changing more recently is that the world's money managers are now creating as well as using open-source software.

One reason for this shift is that, as Broadridge CTO Roger Burkhardt put it, between inflation and recession, "financial companies need to save money and open-source development helps them do that. … Open source becomes irresistibly attractive to developers and IT decision-makers who are being asked to do more with a whole lot less."

Oh, wait! Burkhardt said that about the 2008 housing bubble financial collapse! My point is when times get bad, open source works best.

Another major reason for open source's success is its promotion within companies has become more organized. Companies with Open Source Program Offices (OSPOs) are more than twice as likely to encourage open-source consumption, and nearly three times as likely to encourage open-source contribution.

So it is that financial services software committers have increased by 43%. Financial open source, however, isn't quite like the rest of the open-source programmer world. Just over half of financial services code is written in Java. In the rest of GitHub's open-source programs, Java accounts for only 11%. That's because financial services firms have been tried and true Java users for decades. They aren't going to be dropping Java -- or COBOL -- anytime soon.

So it is, said Gabriele Columbro, FINOS' Executive Director, that open-source adoption is continuing "laying out the necessary building blocks for an organic, growing, and sustainable open community in the industry. While we know there is still a lot of work to do to reach full maturity, we're extremely proud of the major role that FINOS played in opening up financial services to the disruptive innovation benefits open source can deliver to this sector."

Part of that work is that compared with other sectors, such as IT, science, and telecom, financial service companies lag behind in encouraging open-source contribution. Still, more than half (54%) of respondents say contributing to open source improved the quality of the software they are currently using. In addition, active participation in open source was cited as a key factor in recruiting and retaining IT talent.

Of course, there's still the bugaboo that open-source software is less secure than proprietary programs. Still, even this delusion is slowly passing away.

Still, it's good that 77% of those surveyed agreed that organizations should be actively contributing to open source in an effort to improve security. In fact, in the aftermath of the Log4Shell security disaster, the financial services industry reacted more swiftly and efficiently than any other industry.

On another side of the financial industry, the venture capitalists have decided open source in finance is a big deal. VC-backed commercial open-source fintech startups, such as Moov, OpenBB, and a16z, now see fintech as the next industry that open source will disrupt.

From what I saw at the conference, 2023 will be the year when the financial sector once and for all becomes not merely a star open-source user, but a champion open-source developer as well.

https://www.zdnet.com/finance/the-future-of-finance-belongs-to-open-source/

....

Of course, there's still the bugaboo that open-source software is less secure than proprietary programs. Still, even this delusion is slowly passing away.

Over the last 20 years, it has become common to promote the concept of peer review in science. Many consider peer review one of the central pillars guaranteeing the validity and accuracy of science.

Is it fair to say that open source software movements are virtually identical to peer review in software engineering? Source code is openly published and can be scrutinized by independent reviewers. Which in turn produces more reliable software, in a process identical to peer review in empirical science.

As a high percentage of open source business models revolve around revenues gained through support, it greatly streamlines the development process translating to open source software which is developed efficiently enough that developers in the past have literally given it away for free. As was and is the case with linux and other freely available operating systems and applications.

One thing that is surprising to me is that we haven't seen more open source software in crypto. It seems as if the two paths of open source software and crypto development are aligned in ways which could be mutually beneficial.

[franky1]

open source does not mean open community

you can have a newspaper that is "open" for people to read. but readers cannot influence or critique the editor as easily or get hired as an editor

other thing is by shouting open source, people then dont do due diligence because they think "cool so someone else done the review"

CBDC are open but everyday i see idiots trying to say how they think a CBDC works based on their authoritarian conspiracy, racism hate speach bias. rather than actually reading/researching how CBDC actually work

we see influencers promote dodgy businesses because they heard other influencers/celebrities already are promoting it. thus thinking the first-in influencer done the due diligence

...
bitcoin dev community..
achowe+gmax moderate the technical subforums, the IRC and other area's. you you try to critique them or point out their code merges are not for the benefit of general users and instead are sponsored code for corporate benefit of subnetwork offramping. your comments are moderated out and such. and they still end up commiting it into a release candidate
..
CDBC are open and readable. most are based on a hyperledger platform of 2 layer (blockchain at bank level reserves of central to commercial banks.. with the subnetwork of smart contract at commercial to customer account level) whereby central bank mints new currency and blockchains it into reserves for commercial banks.. and its then the commercial banks then manage the customer transactions not the central bank.. yet idiots think CBDC are where government politicians are watching everyones coffee and bagel purchases

its no surprise the corporate paid core devs are using certain buzzwords and including features to convert bitcoin to emulate the hyperledger platform of CBDC(just a shame the subnetwork emulat's below bitcoins mainnet have flaws and bugs and not secure or trustable to actually use as a store of value system of savings for long term use of daily spends over multiple months before closing accounts to settle out/withdraw true value

[Solosanz]

That's just a marketing strategy, it's open source, but only for not important part. While the critical part that it's need to be open source, they wouldn't show the source and will say it's for their good and any other non sense reason. What's the point if we can't see the full sources and we can't verify anything about their claims? it's similar like centralized entity that closed source where we will only depends and trust in them.

[mk4]

One thing that is surprising to me is that we haven't seen more open source software in crypto. It seems as if the two paths of open source software and crypto development are aligned in ways which could be mutually beneficial.

Most of crypto is open source though? It's just the fact that even if the huge majority of crypto are open source, 99% are still theoretically crap and useless.

[Doan9269]

One thing that is surprising to me is that we haven't seen more open source software in crypto. It seems as if the two paths of open source software and crypto development are aligned in ways which could be mutually beneficial.

Most of crypto is open source though? It's just the fact that even if the huge majority of crypto are open source, 99% are still theoretically crap and useless.

Open source is a good crypto idea but should we go for everything bthat is open source, obviously no because we cannot trust the entire crypto network except for bitcoin, there's no openness in an opinion that takes in custody of your asset and denied you the right to them later in life, or what is the openness in a crypto projects that has turn to scam and fraud by carting away people's investment overnight, i think we need to have a rethink that about open source been only effective when you're dealing with bitcoin and handling it the proper way.

[Kakmakr]

Proprietary code provides more security in my opinion.... where Open source has to go through Peer review, before it can be pushed into full operation. The financial institutions need more control over this whole reviewing of the code process, where they can hire certified external developers to alpha and beta test their software.

So I cannot see how Open source can provide better security, than Proprietary code? (Example : Mike Hearn and R3 development)

[russselcarri]

One thing that is surprising to me is that we haven't seen more open source software in crypto. It seems as if the two paths of open source software and crypto development are aligned in ways which could be mutually beneficial.

Most of crypto is open source though? It's just the fact that even if the huge majority of crypto are open source, 99% are still theoretically crap and useless.

Open source means too much plagiarism, means a lot is worthless. The core of the source code still has strong privacy, and many of them have left backdoors for their own project parties. Of course, open source code is also an important marketing method, in order to get more silly users. Behind the project is a sharp guillotine

[Outhue]

One thing that is surprising to me is that we haven't seen more open source software in crypto. It seems as if the two paths of open source software and crypto development are aligned in ways which could be mutually beneficial.

Most of crypto is open source though? It's just the fact that even if the huge majority of crypto are open source, 99% are still theoretically crap and useless.

Open source means too much plagiarism, means a lot is worthless. The core of the source code still has strong privacy, and many of them have left backdoors for their own project parties. Of course, open source code is also an important marketing method, in order to get more silly users. Behind the project is a sharp guillotine

I think you need to learn more about open source, it's pure transparency, how can a project be open source and still have a backdoor? And no one sees the back door? What's the open source then?

Open-source projects have nothing to hide, you can easily see all their codes and what they are running, with no hide-and-seek like Closed source, what you just defined sounds exactly like Closed source projects.

[Frankolala]

Open source is not safe and they can do away with your coin which is in their custody,all the other crypto are like this that is why to me I feel they are into centralized system. They keep on deceiving people that don't understand this logic.

Bitcoin is made for decentralization and its serving that purpose which makes it more valuable since it can't be controlled by anyone and no third party is involved. Open source is not reliable. Though transparency is what open source is all about

[vv181]

One thing that is surprising to me is that we haven't seen more open source software in crypto. It seems as if the two paths of open source software and crypto development are aligned in ways which could be mutually beneficial.

What kind of cryptocurrency software that is lacking in this ecosystem?

Many abstraction layers of cryptocurrency software are open source, it's meant to give developers some room to develop some altcoin applications. The development would thrive if the developer's resources are plentiful, and as far as I concern, many of them are not lacking of any open-source materials.

I think those two paths of alignment are rather codependent, and they might have already been applied, as of now. In order for cryptocurrency development to thrive, opening up the code base to fit the cryptocurrency transparency nature is a prerequisite.

[franky1]

I think you need to learn more about open source, it's pure transparency, how can a project be open source and still have a backdoor? And no one sees the back door? What's the open source then?

Open-source projects have nothing to hide, you can easily see all their codes and what they are running, with no hide-and-seek like Closed source, what you just defined sounds exactly like Closed source projects.

open source is not about there being backdoors. as you can SEE the source code

but open source no longer means "open community", "open door" involvement of the development and activation process of new features
the devs have a closed door policy, with the false appearance of an open door policy

.. its this now lack of vote-in to activate, that is a closed door policy for review/scrutiny that becomes the greater harm. not backdoors

you can read the code. but your not part of the decision if that code should be part of the full community network rule-set

in 2009-14 it required a majority of full node users to have upgraded their node to include potential rule-set change validation, before new rule activation. to then be ready to validate the new rule without causing a fork.
whereby lack of majority means the features dont upgrade.
in short it was a opt-in vote to activate

but now new rules get activated without opt-in vote requirement/need of the wider community

the policy is now close minded dev group, of:
"if you dont like the code.. fork off to an altcoin and see who follows"
thus devs are no longer scrutinised by those outside their dev group, and instead told to go away

[mk4]

I think you need to learn more about open source, it's pure transparency, how can a project be open source and still have a backdoor? And no one sees the back door? What's the open source then?

Open-source projects have nothing to hide, you can easily see all their codes and what they are running, with no hide-and-seek like Closed source, what you just defined sounds exactly like Closed source projects.

That's mostly true, but knowing how complex code can be depending on the project, the developer can easily have an obfuscated backdoor in the source code. It'll take a very competitive developer or a developer that's specifically looking for such an exploit/backdoor to spot it.

[franky1]

I think you need to learn more about open source, it's pure transparency, how can a project be open source and still have a backdoor? And no one sees the back door? What's the open source then?

Open-source projects have nothing to hide, you can easily see all their codes and what they are running, with no hide-and-seek like Closed source, what you just defined sounds exactly like Closed source projects.

That's mostly true, but knowing how complex code can be depending on the project, the developer can easily have an obfuscated backdoor in the source code. It'll take a very competitive developer or a developer that's specifically looking for such an exploit/backdoor to spot it.

2017: "backward compatibility", no longer requires consensus upgrade first to vote in an activation. its now a 'just let the horse in, its fine we dont need to check it, we trust someone else has before'

just saying.. there is a back door. but seems no one cares that consensus is not the same byzantine generals solution of 2009-2014

[Outhue]

I think you need to learn more about open source, it's pure transparency, how can a project be open source and still have a backdoor? And no one sees the back door? What's the open source then?

Open-source projects have nothing to hide, you can easily see all their codes and what they are running, with no hide-and-seek like Closed source, what you just defined sounds exactly like Closed source projects.

That's mostly true, but knowing how complex code can be depending on the project, the developer can easily have an obfuscated backdoor in the source code. It'll take a very competitive developer or a developer that's specifically looking for such an exploit/backdoor to spot it.

@MK4 If this is true then not even open source is 100% safe, I thought the transparency of the code is everything that's there to it, so it's possible not to spot a backdoor even if it's open source? Mehn I don't know that, this shit just keep getting wider and scary everyday, buh thanks for the knowledge been shared.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Most of crypto is open source though? It's just the fact that even if the huge majority of crypto are open source, 99% are still theoretically crap and useless.

Reasonable, I might say. Open-source means that each problem has to only be solved once. That's the whole point. If we create several cryptocurrencies, and don't focus on the development of one, it'll just be waste of time and energy. Fortunately, there's a decent time spent on Bitcoin development.

One big downside with being open-source, free software, is that developers have to find companies or organizations to fund their work. And since there isn't much incentive to do that, such projects end up being developed slowly.

[franky1]

One big downside with being open-source, free software, is that developers have to find companies or organizations to fund their work. And since there isn't much incentive to do that, such projects end up being developed slowly.

maybe just maybe.. if only there was a currency that was invented. in say 2009. which by hoarding a few coins years ago would self sustain devs lifestyle to day to not need to be sponsored by companies and then have to be compliant to those sponsors demands. oh wait there is such a currency.


i have been self sustainable since 2012 thanks to bitcoin. i dont need an employer
i get to be open and frank with my thoughts

just a shame devs didnt invest in bitcoin to be self sustainable

[so98nn]

Not a techie but in simple words it seems terrifying that proprietory developers are relying a lot on the open source programs. They are literally getting everything from just searching the web which means they are not suing their brains with full capacity I guess. This could be tough to digest but it’s unrealistic when you just mix up codes available on the open market and do not have modesty to develop entirely new code from the scratch.

Plus doing this in the financial domain is seriously not worth it. It could have loop holes leading to hacks, disturbing leaks and what not. I would always want my service provider to be 100% sure about their codes!

[franky1]

Not a techie but in simple words it seems terrifying that proprietory developers are relying a lot on the open source programs. They are literally getting everything from just searching the web which means they are not suing their brains with full capacity I guess. This could be tough to digest but it’s unrealistic when you just mix up codes available on the open market and do not have modesty to develop entirely new code from the scratch.

what if i told you most commands and functions used in programming software today are actually commands and functions coded by other developers of the last generation

yep when someone uses a command like openfile 'fopen()'
that open file is a function name of a whole lump of code to do the file opening process that someone else wrote years ago

so its not surprising

the difference is these pre programmed commands/functions are a library of commands/functions that have been sorted into a set that has become part of some central located 'update' to a programming language package.
where as open source is where current generation people can just copy and paste in functions of recently produced commands/function. that are not part of some sorted library update of a programming language.

in short. imagine microsoft visual studio didnt have "openfile" as a preset command(not in its command library) where you would if you wanted to open a file have to manually script your own process or wait for years hoping microsoft add it to the library in future updates... or.. borrow someone elses script/function from an open source

if everyone had to write things manually where there were no libraries or open source. people would hate coding and would take alot longer to create things(years instead of hours-weeks)

[mk4]

@MK4 If this is true then not even open source is 100% safe, I thought the transparency of the code is everything that's there to it, so it's possible not to spot a backdoor even if it's open source? Mehn I don't know that, this shit just keep getting wider and scary everyday, buh thanks for the knowledge been shared.

Something being open-source never meant that it was 100% safe. It's the same reason why DeFi protocols get exploited despite being 100% open source — since open source means even the hackers can see if the protocol has bugs that can potentially be exploited.

[hatshepsut93]

It's not just finance, a lot of commercial software has a tendency to become open source for the reasons you mentioned - it's better, more secure, more reviewed. But proprietary closed source software is not going away, in certain cases you don't want your competition to have access to the thing you are developing. Plus it's not like a lot of companies have all their codebase open source - only some parts of it are, so we can't really talk about "open source finance" if it's not 100% open source, like crypto.