If, in the future, Indian stock markets (NSE/BSE) were to shift their settlement and ownership infrastructure to blockchain, what impact would it have on market participants?
And would firms like Jane Street and other quant players gain an even bigger edge by leveraging blockchain data, technology, and speed more effectively than retail traders?
Curious to know what the community thinks.
I would separate settlement transparency from trading edge.
A blockchain-style ownership or settlement layer could make record keeping more auditable, but it would not automatically remove manipulation from the trading layer. Most market edge still comes from speed, data quality, execution systems, capital, and how quickly participants can interpret order flow.
So retail may benefit from cleaner records and maybe faster settlement, but quant firms would still have advantages if they can process the same public data faster or combine it with better private/alternative data. The real question is what data is public, what is delayed.
I am really not sure, but faster settlement will be a plus.
@VigyaanVest
Almost all your answers are copy/paste from AI/ChatGPT. The question was what community thinks.
Nothing wrong in using AI, but mention “chatgpt/AI model thinks” at the top/bottom, because this is a discussion forum.
This is what Perplexity gave me
A blockchain-style market would likely reduce some recordkeeping and settlement manipulation, but it would also tend to amplify the advantage of quant firms unless SEBI adds stronger rules on data access, execution fairness, and surveillance.tradingqna+2
Why manipulation may fall
Blockchain improves auditability because trades and ownership changes are harder to alter after the fact, which helps regulators reconstruct flows and detect abuse. NITI Aayog’s blockchain strategy also frames the tech as useful when the goal is reducing intermediaries and improving trust in shared records. That means back-office fraud, settlement disputes, and opaque cross-entity ownership are the areas most likely to improve.niti+3
Why quants may gain
Quant firms usually win when markets become faster, cleaner, and more machine-readable, because they can process public data and order flow much faster than retail participants. Blockchain does not remove the advantage of speed, capital, and infrastructure; it often makes those advantages more valuable. So the same transparency that helps regulators can also hand systematic traders a richer, cleaner data stream to exploit.tradetron+3
What it won’t solve
Blockchain does not stop trading-layer manipulation like spoofing, layering, or expiry-day price pressure; it just makes the evidence easier to preserve. Recent SEBI actions against large quant players show that abusive behavior can arise from strategy design and market structure, not just from poor recordkeeping. In other words, a better ledger is not the same thing as a fairer market.sciencedirectyoutubefticonsulting+2
India-specific outcome
India is already moving toward tighter settlement and more digital market infrastructure, which suggests a gradual shift rather than a full blockchain overhaul. If that happens, the immediate winner is likely the regulator through better audit trails, while the operational winner is likely the quant desk with the best systems. So the most realistic answer is: less hidden manipulation, more power to sophisticated quants.pib+4
I definitely believe that Quant firms get advantage but to some extent not
These days few of the well respected forums do not accept/appreciate AI posts altogether. A disclaimer will be good. Forum is more a place for personal opinions and experiences, imagine if everyone started doing AI posts, this place wouldnt be the same.
For the record, I did not report your posts. Whoever did it may have noticed your pattern.
That is what the audience already did when they flagged your posts as spam.
Please consider the feedback.
@VigyaanVest i hope you realise the damage you are doing to your own brand by posting LLM outputs verbatim. Which i assume is quite the opposite of your intention by participating in this forum using your brand.
Disclaimer has been added to the profile. Hopefully we move past this and look at content value going forward. Thanks for the inputs.
Best to add it on posts where you largely use AI. No one looks at profile.
“largely” is again very relative thing. We will use our judgement. Lets get back to what each one of does best for the day.
Boss threads seems to going from blockchain to blocking LLM otputs 
Totally agree. No one is calling out the “bullying” on this forum. All subjective judgements being passed as authoritative responses. Where are the mods.
Yes it’s become a problem. Lot of new product creators have swooped in lately (some even peddle illegal services against Sebi regulations) posting AI output all over the place… to fake engagement…
Your post is restored.
Is it spam though? Not all AI generated post become spam automatically. It needs some selling on the part of the author and the author hiding their affiliation. Wouldn’t you agree?
Boss @nithin what is your perspective on Indian markets shifting to a blockchain model?
What do you see as the boons and banes for brokers, retail , and FIIs in this transition?
Yes. Agreed.
That’s just one way to spam.
i.e. one of the reasons to flag posts as spam in Discourse / this forum -
This post is an advertisement, …
The others being…
or vandalism,
or It is not useful or relevant to the current topic.
FWIW, here are the “not hard and fast rules” -
https://tradingqna.com/guidelines
The section of flagging posts goes into some more detail.
Hopefully a read through the above linked forum guidelines
and reading about how Discourse works (Trust levels, Flags),
what flagging a post does, when it is hidden and when it is not,
will help avoid jumping to conclusions based on misconceptions.
@VigyaanVest AFAICT, no one is silencing you from posting on this forum.
https://tradingqna.com/search?q=%40vigyaanvest%20order%3Alatest
Hopefully, you can review the differences in the flagged posts
compared to the rest that were not flagged,
and steer your future posts towards higher-quality and away from lower-effort.
A belated welcome to the forum. 
That would be “off topic” flag. “Spam” flags are taken much more seriously and kind of has immediate effect. Given the spam definition of “advertisement or vandalism”, the flag was indeed inappropriate for the post and does come across as “bullying” from the poster pov.
Not really. The quoted text is from…
Like they already pointed out, it is subjective.
Agreed, there is a degree of subjectivity involved.
However, nothing is authoritative.
Sure. No disagreement there.
They were under the misapprehension that they were being bullied.
After the last 3 posts, hopefully, they know that they weren’t.
To avoid the sidebar discussion from taking over the topic-thread, …
Blockchain is a database.
An extremely inefficient implementation.
However, it has a potentially desirable property - it can bootstrap trust.
That is NOT a problem in traditional financial setups where trusted intermediaries already exist.
Also, blockchain or not, participants (brokers, quants, retail, FIIs, …)
anyway end-up deferring trust in 3rd-parties (often willingly)
to reduce their own operational complexity (and costs).
So the premise,
requires one to first think of and establish,
“Why did they choose to adopt this seemingly inefficient approach?”
…the answer to which,
will have more significant and meaningful implications about the environment at that time,
and thus be able to better answer
what sort of entities in the market are likely to thrive in such an environment, and why.
Also, there isn’t a blockchain per-se.
Can explore the types of blockchains and how one might adopt/integrate each in a market,
and the implications/effects of each.
i initially refrained from responding on this thread,
as i was struggling with the thought- “Where do we even begin… sigh!”
Took me a while to come-up with something that is hopefully concise enough and still makes sense.
Also, i hope this is a good illustration of the difference between responses that -
In the pre-LLM era,
the responses of the latter category above
were obvious at first sight and trivial to detect/know.
However, with the advent of LLMs,
in addition to the sycophantic filler text,
LLMs (used in default chatbots and IDEs)
often generate responses in the latter category
due to the nature of the system-prompt and user-prompts.
There is no critical thinking involved.
Usually because neither the system-prompt nor the user-prompt required that.
However, “used an LLM” is no excuse for posting such spam.
The onus is on the user to setup and prompt the LLM to avoid its spam.
This “lack of critical thinking” is a slightly more elaborate way of saying -
PPS: I do not think that anyone is justifying spam
or making a case in this thread for promoting spam on the forum.
Point you need to get home is to stay away from judgmental and qualitative feedback (“lower-effort”,“damaging”, “ai-verbatim”, “illegal services”) to individuals. You have the choice to report in any category. Beyond that, long threads like this are a sheer waste of others time and your also (though this may be subjective!!).
Once and for all
