Design of a Blockchain‑Based Financial Risk Data Sharing Alliance (Version 2.0)

Financial institutions often need to share risk‑related data such as black‑, gray‑, and yellow‑lists to improve credit‑risk control, but the existing seller‑driven pricing model creates unfair costs, high integration effort, data resale risks, and a lack of quality assurance.

To address these issues, the paper proposes a blockchain‑based consortium that offers a neutral, immutable platform for data queries, token‑linked pricing, and transparent quality evaluation, thereby enhancing overall industry risk‑management capabilities.

The discussion is divided into two parts: the first describes the business scenario, pain points, and compares two blockchain design versions; the second focuses on implementation details, including ledger, consensus, smart contracts, and privacy mechanisms.

Key business pain points identified are: (1) a seller‑dominated market where pricing is set by data providers, (2) high integration costs due to multiple vendor interfaces, (3) risk of data being resold, and (4) absence of a fair, accountable accounting system. Proposed technical solutions include distributed ledger, consortium consensus, privacy protection, and smart contracts.

The initial 1.0 design links data categories to a “points” token, with upload and download phases recorded on the ledger. However, it suffers from data‑security concerns (core data still stored on participant nodes), uncertain data quality, low transaction efficiency, and regulatory restrictions on token circulation.

The improved 2.0 design eliminates the need for participants to upload core data, introduces a service layer that enables secure multi‑party computation (SMC), and uses a token‑based accounting system that supports post‑query settlement, real‑time quality verification, and regulated token redemption.

A detailed query flow is presented: a requesting institution’s business system contacts its service system, which routes the request through the blockchain to the counterparty’s service system; the counterparty validates and returns the result, after which the service systems handle asynchronous result delivery and post‑query accounting on‑chain, followed by optional audit.

The regulatory participant’s responsibilities include maintaining the distributed query mechanism, providing audit services, and handling off‑chain settlement based on on‑chain records, without directly interfering with the ledger.

The overall architecture builds on Hyperledger Fabric, reusing its ordering and endorsement nodes. Two core components are defined: BS‑F (Blockchain Service System) that bridges participant systems to the ledger and caches block/transaction data, and BU‑F (Blockchain Utility System) that offers operational tools such as node and certificate management for the consortium.

Deployment details show ordering nodes handling configuration and block generation, endorsement nodes belonging to individual institutions for business‑level consensus, and the regulatory system connecting directly to the ledger while participants access the network via the service layer, ensuring scalability, security, and compliance.