I'm gonna keep saying this forever - there are two obvious "killer apps" for crypto:
1. Semi-private blockchains, where you can rely on an actor not to be actively malicious, but still want to be able to cryptographically hold them to a past statement (think banks settling up with each other)
2. NFTs for tracking physical products through a logistics supply chain. Every time a container moves from one node to the next in a physical logistics chain (which includes tons of low trust "last mile" carriers), its corresponding NFT changes ownership as well. This could become as granular as there's money to support.
These would both provide material advantages above and beyond a centralized SQL database as there's no obvious central party that is trusted enough to operate that database. Neither has anything to do with retail investors or JPEGs though, so they'll never moon and you'll never hear about them.
Not only do you not need the blockchain for either of those things, you don't want it.
Think it through. How do you actually "cryptographically hold" someone to anything? You take them to court.
Guess what you can do, right now, without the blockchain? That's right, you can take them to court.
You're just reinventing normal contract law with extra steps.
The cryptographic part doesn't even help you when you can just say in court that "here are our records that show we gave them these packages, here are our records of customers filing complaints that they never got them" and that is completely fine.
This exact thing happens too often. We try to use fancy technology to solve a non-texhnical problem.
With or without blockchain you end up at court. If you build a decentralized trust system, the builder of the system needs to be trusted. If you want to use decentralized trust to do your taxes or other government communication you still need to trust your government. These are all actual examples i’ve encountered.
You pretty much always end up at the legal system. If there js anything to make big impact on it would be that. But that requires world-wide revolution.
AFAIK both of these use cases had many millions of invested dollars dumped into them during the Blockchain hype and neither resulted in anything. It might not be an exact match for (1), but there was famously the ASX blockchain project[0] which turned out to be a total failure. For (2), IBM made "Farmer Connect"[1], which is now almost entirely scrubbed from their website, which promised to do supply chain logistics on a blockchain.
> ASX blockchain project[0] which turned out to be a total failure.
FWIW if you know anything about the ASX, you'll know that the failure was a result of the people running the ASX and not necessarily the tech behind it.
IMHO, most people misunderstand the real utility of crypto.
The thing to keep in mind is that replacing a database with computationally expensive crypto is sub-optimal. Supply Chain tracking falls into this category: why crypto over barcodes and a database?
Governments use Banks with their deterministic processes to manage and guarantee transactions. This is where crypto shines- replacing the entire banking system as an intermediary to manage and guarantee transactions. Crypto can do this better and cheaper than Banks.
There are other domains where the government is the backstop/guarantor and leverages intermediaries to manage the scale. Real Estate comes to mind. Identity is another. Crypto can be useful there.
One last useful crypto application is to replace governments themselves as the backstop and final/guarantor for transactions.
These are ideas that evoke strong reactions. There's a reason the inventor of crypto is anonymous, to this day.
The only "killer app" for crypto*currencies* is being a payment method. Not counting speculation. This is what they are used for right now, but the scale at which this happens doesn't justify their current valuation (even after recent losses).
But is that a better experience than just using your visa? Nobody wants to wait at the cashier for 15 minutes to pay for their groceries, which is what has to happen if you really want the decentralized experience. Otherwise you really are just reinventing a worse, centralized payment rails. Volatility and wait times are features of crypto, not bugs, but they make for terrible payment experiences.
Doesn't lightning settle basically instantly, while still being decentralized? You're just trading signed transactions iirc, with settlement happening whenever.
The settlement happening whenever is a problem. Instant authorization is very different from a practical settlement model.
At least with card networks, there are layers of liability if solvency issues occur. There’s merchant protections from the acquiring bank and if for some reason the acquiring bank fails there is the guarantee of the card network.
On the issuing side there are chargebacks. I hate chargebacks as much as the next startup bro but consumer protections are a necessary aspect of a functioning payment rail. There are reasons we don’t use ACH for everything.
I think hand waving the pesky settlement details is absurd. The settlement process is the payment rail.
If you do want those protections you end up back with a custodial wallet, which brings us back to a centralized model.
I’m not arguing crypto doesn’t have its place in the universe, I am arguing it’s a very bad payments product.
I don’t have a horse in this race, but my only point was you don’t have to wait 15 minutes for a really decentralized experience. Yeah, you do need to be ok with not being able to later chargeback your grocery store, just like with cash. Which is fine for your example of groceries in hand, less great for large purchases over the internet.
Maybe we don’t need an alternative when Visa handles everything, but it might be nice to not pay a 3% markup on everything. Alternatively, we could try to be more like India and Brazil, which each built instant bank to bank transfer setups you can use at the grocery store, without the risks that come with losing debit/credit cards. Convenient without poor people with no rewards cards subsidizing everyone else to cover Visa’s take.
>Yeah, you do need to be ok with not being able to later chargeback your grocery store, just like with cash.
Well the reason that works is because in grocery stores you have a concept of card present so the liability shifts to the issuing bank... so there are no chargebacks. Concepts like card present and card not present demand a centralized authority and really can't exist in a decentralized payment rail, unless you're going to somehow invent decentralized pos hardware for merchants. Once you enter the world of atoms, you have re-introduced centralized trust into your payment rail though.
> Convenient without poor people with no rewards cards subsidizing everyone else to cover Visa’s take.
I fully agree. This is a crappy part of ccs and the best remedy is to disallow rewards programs for credit products. This isn't a fault of the card networks its a fault of issuing banks (and the airlines). Every crypto company in 2021 was offering 8% APY, you think those guys would have been better about this than Amex?
> Maybe we don’t need an alternative when Visa handles everything, but it might be nice to not pay a 3% markup on everything.
I'm actually not bothered by a take from the banks and networks involved. They are underwriting risk and affording insurances to me and the merchant. I guess my main argument is that it's good to have centralized insurance in money transfer facilitation. 3% is high and a failure of Dodd Frank. The Durbin Amendment should have reigned in cc fees and not just focused on debit interchange.
> Alternatively, we could try to be more like India and Brazil, which each built instant bank to bank transfer setups you can use at the grocery store, without the risks that come with losing debit/credit cards.
I don't disagree. As you pointed out it really comes down to the crappy reward programs from the issuing banks that make merchants and poor people suffer.
I don't mind crypto as an idea. I don't have a horse in the crypto race either. What I mind is the notion that it is somehow a viable payment rail. I'm sorry, it's been 20 years and crypto's best use case for payments has been buying acid on the internet because it was the only payment option.
I think one of the most interesting business stories in the world is about the guy who invented the Visa network, Dee Hock. It truly is a story of decentralization at its finest. John Coogan did a great video on him a couple of years ago I highly recommend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNbi2cUZt1o.
1. Semi-private blockchains, where you can rely on an actor not to be actively malicious, but still want to be able to cryptographically hold them to a past statement (think banks settling up with each other)
2. NFTs for tracking physical products through a logistics supply chain. Every time a container moves from one node to the next in a physical logistics chain (which includes tons of low trust "last mile" carriers), its corresponding NFT changes ownership as well. This could become as granular as there's money to support.
These would both provide material advantages above and beyond a centralized SQL database as there's no obvious central party that is trusted enough to operate that database. Neither has anything to do with retail investors or JPEGs though, so they'll never moon and you'll never hear about them.