Kendra Schaefer 凯娜

Problems with market-driven credit models: use cases are much more narrow, in that they can only really assess financial risk, they cannot double as a tool of social governance.

Also, market-driven credit systems arise organically. China's market-driven credit services are too far behind developed countries, and too urgently needed, to be allowed to develop on their own.

His conclusions: 1. China is trying to create a hybrid government / market credit model, but at the moment, the government participation in the SCS is choking out market participation. Policymakers should now focus on developing the market side of the SCS.

2. China's modern SCS has deviated too far from its roots, and has too many use cases. It is now being used to: improve social honesty, support lending risk assessments, promote judicial integrity, clean up gov and biz environments. It should be segmented into discrete systems.

I'm interested to see how closely the next social credit planning directive (due out pretty soon, now) aligns with Lin's recommendations. Have the architects of China's SCS lost control of their baby? Or will Chinese policymakers also pull back and majorly re-assess?

How much of the development of either system is down to lack of technology to implement the ideas, and how much closer is it now? To me it seems like combing systems makes sense, someone just needs to work out how to do it and no one is better placed than China to do so

The tech underpinning the government SCS has been under development for 20 years. Social credit data collection channels were built on top of existing government data-sharing networks. So, those are already in place, although constantly being upgraded.

The issues with implementing market-driven credit systems in China aren't really tech issues, they're data and regulation issues: what data can you reliably collect? What data *should* you collect? Does that data tell you what you want to know?