# Legacy systems `kaal:entity:legacy-systems` **Status.** derived This node is assembled mechanically from the 15 claims that carry the concept tag `legacy-systems`. It is a roster of what the corpus says under this term. It is **not** an adjudicated definition: no single statement here has been ruled canonical, and no first-appearance call has been made. Read the claims and judge for yourself. ## Every claim under this term 15 claims across 10 works, 2017 to 2024. **2017** - [2998033-023](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2998033-023) [mechanism/asserted] -- Because blockchain is transparent, verifiable, self authenticating and self enforcing, financial transactions can be executed instantaneously at near zero transaction cost, which raises efficiency for businesses and individuals exponentially. > Because blockchain technology is transparent, verifiable, self- authenticating, and self-enforcing, financial transactions can be executed instantaneously at near zero transaction costs, increasing the efficiency for business and individuals exponentially. Wulf A. Kaal, Blockchain Innovation for Private Investment Funds (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2998033 - [3002908-019](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3002908-019) [mechanism/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Private investment funds entered the blockchain sector earlier than other financial players, yet because of legacy systems in private fund infrastructure the proportion of funds investing in blockchain is still small. > Private investment funds have invested earlier in the blockchain sector than other financial players. Because of legacy systems in the private investment fund infrastructure, the proportion of private investment funds that invest in blockchain technology is still small Wulf A. Kaal, Marco Dell'Erba, Blockchain Innovation in Private Investment Funds - A Comparative Analysis of the United States and (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3002908 - [3002908-027](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3002908-027) [empirical/argued] -- The authors interpret the AUM difference as suggesting that larger European advisers are more willing to fund blockchain infrastructure, while in the United States legacy systems used by larger advisers create a barrier to entry. > This could suggest that in Europe larger private investment fund advisers are more willing to make the required investments into a blockchain infrastructure whereas in the US the legacy systems utilized by larger private investment fund advisers creates a barrier to entry Wulf A. Kaal, Marco Dell'Erba, Blockchain Innovation in Private Investment Funds - A Comparative Analysis of the United States and (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3002908 - [3002908-028](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3002908-028) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- The authors undercut their own legacy systems explanation: legacy systems in the EU should theoretically create the same barriers, and there is no reason to believe US legacy systems are more of an obstacle than European ones. > Theoretically, however, legacy systems in the EU should create the same barriers for larger private investment fund advisers. There is no reason to believe that legacy systems in the United States would constitute more of an obstacle than legacy systems in the EU. Wulf A. Kaal, Marco Dell'Erba, Blockchain Innovation in Private Investment Funds - A Comparative Analysis of the United States and (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3002908 **2018** - [3227933-023](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3227933-023) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Adoption of blockchain is costly and technically difficult because the technology is continually evolving and integrating blockchain databases with existing systems raises many technical challenges, such as interfacing a payment ledger with a vehicle's control software. > And then there are the costs of shifting to the new technology, which is continually evolving, and which are also high. Not to mention the many technical challenges involved in integrating blockchain databases with existing systems. Mark Fenwick, Wulf A. Kaal, Erik P.M. Vermeulen, Why 'Blockchain' Will Disrupt Corporate Organizations (2018). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3227933 **2019** - [3409548-023](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3409548-023) [empirical/evidenced] -- Legacy systems at private investment funds and banks are more expensive, more error prone, and slower than emerging blockchain technologies, a gap illustrated by the $1.7 trillion in processing fees banks charged in 2014. > Most legacy systems at private investment funds and banks are much more expensive than emerging blockchain technologies, are subject to human error, and take much more time. Banks charged $1.7 trillion in processing fees in 2014. Kaal, Financial Technology and Hedge Funds (2019). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3409548 - [3411110-001](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3411110-001) [failure/asserted] *(failure mode)* -- Existing ledger structures for securities offerings are defective: because individual firms rely on batch processing, the model generates dependencies, multi-day settlement times, distinctive operational risks, and duplicative costs. > ledger structures applicable to securities offerings are subject to significant shortcomings: While for individual firms, batch-processing is the norm, this model creates numerous dependencies, multi-day settlement times, unique operational risks, and duplicative costs. Wulf A. Kaal, Samuel Evans, Blockchain-Based Securities Offerings (2019). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3411110 - [3411110-037](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3411110-037) [predictive/argued] -- Development of blockchain based processes will take several years if not decades, so the most likely outcome is that legacy and blockchain based issuance, trading, and settlement systems coexist side by side for the foreseeable future. > will take several years if not decades, and so the most likely circumstance is that legacy and blockchain-based securities issuance, trading, settlement, and related systems and processes will have to co-exist side-by-side for the foreseeable future. Wulf A. Kaal, Samuel Evans, Blockchain-Based Securities Offerings (2019). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3411110 - [3441904-026](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3441904-026) [condition/argued] *(failure mode)* -- The complex systems that decentralized infrastructure technology will reform are interdependent, so development of the infrastructure elements alone is not enough: structural and cultural changes in legacy systems must be worked through before the technology can be applied. > Even if the decentralized infrastructure elements are being developed in any of the major areas of use cases for blockchain technology, complex discussions around structural and cultural changes in legacy systems are needed before the technology can be applied. Wulf A. Kaal, Blockchain-Based Corporate Governance (2019). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3441904 **2020** - [3709041-027](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3709041-027) [predictive/argued] -- Developing and third world countries, unlike developed countries, will likely be enabled by blockchain technology to leapfrog several stages of development that legacy systems would otherwise require. > Unlike developed countries, third world- and developing countries will likely be enabled by blockchain technology to leapfrog several stages of development, otherwise necessitated in existing legacy systems. Kaal, Blockchain Technology for Good (2020). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3709041 **2021** - [3808873-013](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3808873-013) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Applying decentralized technology to optimize a legacy system, for example using blockchain to improve the malfunctioning shareholder proxy voting process, perpetuates the outdated and malfunctioning centralized system rather than replacing it with a better performing decentralized one. > In the process, the outdated and malfunctioning centralized legacy systems are being perpetuated rather than being replaced with better performing decentralized systems. Wulf A. Kaal, Decentralization Neutralizers (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3808873 **2024** - [4796714-003](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4796714-003) [failure/asserted] *(failure mode)* -- At the time of publication no legacy governance system exists that can supply the dynamic governance toolsets required to govern evolving AI models ex-ante and manage deployed solutions ex-post. > No legacy systems exist at the time of publication that could provide such dynamic governance toolsets. Wulf A. Kaal, AI Governance (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4796714 - [4796714-024](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4796714-024) [condition/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Ex-ante regulation is preferable in principle but is neither practical nor sufficient inside legacy systems, precisely because legacy systems, unlike the web3 system proposed here, are not equipped to create dynamic feedback effects. > while ex ante regulation is preferable, it is not always practical or sufficient in legacy ssytems to address the dynamic challenges that AI technologies present because legacy systems, unlike web3 systems as proposed herein, are not typically equipped to create dynamic feedback effects. Wulf A. Kaal, AI Governance (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4796714 - [4796714-025](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4796714-025) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Strict legacy regulation built on stable and presumptively optimal rules and enforced at the AI development stage can inadvertently stifle innovation by imposing rigid constraints before a model is fully developed or deployed. > Strict legacy type regulations with stable and presumptively optimal rules83 enforced at the development stage of AI might inadvertently stifle innovation. Wulf A. Kaal, AI Governance (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4796714 - [4941807-002](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4941807-002) [failure/asserted] *(failure mode)* -- Governing AI requires toolsets that simultaneously handle ex-ante governance of models still evolving and ex-post management of deployed solutions, and Kaal asserts that as of publication no legacy system supplies such dynamic governance toolsets. > Such systems are crucial to address the dual needs when governing evolving AI models ex-ante and managing existing solutions ex-post. No legacy systems exist at the time of publication that could provide such dynamic governance toolsets. Wulf A. Kaal, AI Governance Via Web3 Reputation System (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4941807 ## Verify Every claim above resolves to a record carrying a verbatim source quote, the sha256 of the source PDF, and a preformatted citation. Nothing here asks to be taken on trust. curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/legacy-systems.md | sha256sum **Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.