Failed blockchain project ends with big fine for fibs about it being on track ⁠29%

By Simon Sharwood⁠0%

7/3/2026, 4:35:52 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 19.4% saturation with 101 hits. Analysis detected 758 faulty-reasoning hits from 520 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠29% (15,693 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 71.70% of the article peer group.

The attempt by Australia’s Securities Exchange (ASX) to replace its core trading platform with a blockchain-based system has ended with an A$20.5 million fine ($14.2 million/£10.6 million), further humiliation after the project flopped. 
The ASX runs a platform called the Clearing House Electronic Subregister System (CHESS) to process and track trades on its exchange. 
In 2017, the ASX decided to replace CHESS, citing difficulties maintaining the application, which the bourse coded in COBOL and ran in OpenVMS on Itanium processors. 
The ASX is a listed company so its own shares trade on CHESS. 
The organization decided to replace CHESS with blockchain-based architecture. 
As explained in its 2019 annual report [PDF], the ASX believed its decision would help it “develop new services that improve the efficiency and standardisation of processes, reduce operational risk, and create new opportunities for growth and innovation.” 
That optimism was utterly misplaced because the project foundered and missed deadline after deadline. 
But in February 2022, the ASX issued a statement [PDF] in which it described the project as “progressing well, with the fully integrated industry test environment open and operating successfully.” 
In the months that followed, the organization issued a string of statements about difficulties with the project and expected deployment delays. 
The ASX ended up abandoning the project. 
In 2024, financial regulator the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) sued, alleging that claim all was well with the CHESS replacement was a misleading statement. 
The regulator argued that as both the market operator, and a listed company itself, any misleading statements from ASX had the potential to undermine confidence in the entire Australian securities market. 
ASX and ASIC settled the matter in June, and the bourse admitted to having misled investors. 
Australia’s Federal Court today handed down its judgement in the matter, noted that the ASX admitted its errors, but still ordered the bourse pay the A$20.5 million fine, plus ASIC’s A$3 million ($2.1 million/£1.55 million) costs. 
A parliamentary report on the project found three reasons why it failed. 
One was that the ASX didn’t properly define its objectives. 
Another was that the company kept adding new requirements but started building the CHESS replacement anyway, meaning the planning and deployment phases of the project overlapped. 
The report also found “scalability risks were not properly identified and managed; with the result that it was never clear whether the proposed blockchain technology could in fact adequately replace the existing CHESS system.” 
Those problems weren’t apparent to the outside world, where the Blockchain community regarded the ASX’s decision as a sign distributed ledger technology was suitable for even the mission-critical role of running a stock exchange. 
The Register offers that assessment based on this account of AWS investigating whether it should get into the blockchain business. 
The author, a former AWS exec, explains how he was sent to Wall Street to research Blockchain, and often heard the opinion that the ASX’s project meant the technology must have merit. 
AWS did not become a major blockchain player. 
And the ASX clearly regrets making the attempt. 
® 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.1%Simon Sharwood: 4.6%The Register: 3.3%Confirmation Bias3.1%This article: 3.8%Simon Sharwood: 0.4%The Register: 1.0%Anchoring Bias3.8%This article: 6.2%Simon Sharwood: 3.2%The Register: 3.2%Availability Heuristic6.2%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 2.8%The Register: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.2%Simon Sharwood: 1.2%The Register: 1.3%Hindsight Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.9%The Register: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Simon Sharwood: 1.6%The Register: 5.0%Framing Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Simon Sharwood: 4.4%The Register: 3.0%Optimism Bias7.3%This article: 2.7%Simon Sharwood: 3.5%The Register: 2.6%Pessimism Bias2.7%This article: 13.3%Simon Sharwood: 8.2%The Register: 8.2%Negativity Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 1.5%The Register: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Simon Sharwood: 0.8%The Register: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error1.5%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.7%The Register: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Simon Sharwood: 0.7%The Register: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 1.1%The Register: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.4%The Register: 1.9%Recency Bias4.0%This article: 2.3%Simon Sharwood: 0.7%The Register: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.3%Simon Sharwood: 2.2%The Register: 4.2%Appeal to Authority8.3%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 1.3%The Register: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.7%The Register: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.5%Simon Sharwood: 7.4%The Register: 6.2%Hasty Generalization6.5%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.5%The Register: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.7%The Register: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.0%Simon Sharwood: 1.4%The Register: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion9.0%This article: 2.7%Simon Sharwood: 0.8%The Register: 0.9%Begging the Question2.7%This article: 1.5%Simon Sharwood: 1.1%The Register: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.5%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.6%The Register: 0.3%Composition/Division6.0%This article: 6.2%Simon Sharwood: 5.6%The Register: 2.2%Anecdotal6.2%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.1%Simon Sharwood: 2.5%The Register: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.1%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.1%Simon Sharwood: 2.5%The Register: 2.3%Unattributed Quote13.1%This article: 7.3%Simon Sharwood: 2.6%The Register: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection7.3%This article: 19.4%Simon Sharwood: 13.0%The Register: 7.3%Biased Writer Voice19.4%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.8%The Register: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon Sharwood: 1.0%The Register: 2.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

520 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers53%attributed speech246writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageAustralia’s Securities Exchange (ASX) • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAustralia’s Securities Exchange (ASX) • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAustralia’s Securities Exchange (ASX) • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAustralia’s Securities Exchange (ASX) • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAustralia’s Securities Exchange (ASX) • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageAustralia’s Securities Exchange (ASX) • 30 words • 100.0% coverageAustralia’s Securities Exchange (ASX) • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAustralia’s Securities Exchange (ASX) • 7 words • 0.0% coverageAustralian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAustralian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) • 31 words • 0.0% coverageAustralian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAustralia’s Federal Court • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
64%flagged-word coverage
73 attributed words27% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-41.1 ptsWriter: 41.1%Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC): 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.