There are large benefits to not relying on a few redundant centralized servers in that case. We have "clearing houses" now, and in most cases they shouldn't be necessary. If you had something like a "permissioned blockchain", any financial institution could easily validate that everything was settled, in real time.
Well someone has to write the code and run the nodes. I’m not on the side of clearing houses but I don’t see the improvement bid switching to a system run by a crypto foundation and a few blockchain validator companies.
A blockchain will allow all these operators to transact safely. It's really just more secure because it's open (otherwise very quickly compromised). And blockchain tech has shown to be reliable when it comes to up-time and security (if you keep it simple).
To be clear, the cryptographic underpinnings of blockchain seem solid, it's just that both implementations and actual usage are by fallible humans. And because everything is irreversible, even if you manage to guard against hackers, you still can straight up incinerate money by (say) mistyping a receiving account number (wallet).
See no mention of Bitcoin or Ether in that page, only centralized shitcoins such as Solana and a few buggy smart contracts. Also, if the system is to be operated by only the banks then transactions _can_ be reversed when needed due to security issues. I don't have a strong opinion whether this is a good option or not, just saying that it's not as absurd as it may seen.
So... what does the crypto provide there that a simple authenticated communication protocol with a few redundant centralized servers doesn't?