re: Is Blockchain really changing the world at all? VIEW POST

FULL DISCUSSION
 

Please read Jean-Michel's answer first, it's really a great answer. However, it's wrong. :-D (no offence)

So why don't we see great products, yet? Because blockchain technology can solve problems when big corporations are doing business together. So we're talking about enterprise software like Oracle and SAP are building. And how long did it take for these companies to build a decent product? (Some might say they still haven't succeeded. Their crappy software is just being used due to no better alternatives.)

So consumers probably won't see products based on blockchain technology anytime soon, unless Facebook achieves to persuade governments all over the globe to allow Libra. While from a technological perspective you might very well see it as another "copy of Bitcoin" it is far more interesting to keep an eye on the political and economical impact of Libra.

=> Why did nobody bother when Amazon introduced Amazon Coins, but now with Libra every politician seems to go wild?

=> Why are there so many consumer platforms for buying stuff (eBay) and social interaction (facebook.com), but nearly no such platforms that corporations use for doing business together?

Because money and power.

  • Amazon coins are just vouchers, they cannot be used as money, so they are no threat to a countries money sovereignty. But Libra would be, because 30 (or 100) big companies are behind Libra as well as more than 2 billion possible users. He who controls Libra has the power to destroy most counties' economies.

  • Corporations see how easy it is for eBay to make money just by providing a platform for consumers to trade. Wouldn't you think that there would be plenty of these platforms for B2B as well? There aren't, because the platform owner is king - he controls margins and even access to the platform. As a business owner you don't want an intermediary have so much power over you. And here blockchain comes to the rescue. Now we can have decentralised platforms with no intermediary, because he who builds the platform is just a software provider, and has no stakes in the business. Owners of B2B blockchain platforms will only receive license fees, so everything related to money and power will stay in the hands of those doing business on the platform.

You might argue that such B2B platforms could have been possible in the past w/o blockchain technology, e.g. a contract could have enforced the platform owner of keeping out from the business that is being done on his platform as well. I guess that's right. But nonetheless there are no such platforms. It required blockchain technology to kick off such a development.

tl;dr: The revolutionary products are on their way, but they are hard to build and they are targeting B2B.

 
 

I agree that blockchain has some pretty neat use cases in B2B, especially when it comes to supply chain management or production tracking stuff. However, I don't think that the big tech companies like MS or SAP will be the major users of that, but more old-school manufacturing companies like for example Volkswagen, who're experimenting with IOTA right now.

For me, Libra isn't really blockchain-based at all. At least in their early days, all transactions are running over the libra association's on servers - which is not far from bank's function today. It's a digital currency and I've got no doubt that it would be much faster and cheaper than the current system, but I don't really know if it's what mankind is really needing, as it's another big step towards plutocracy.

 

I was intrigued about Libra so I researched the subject more and have found this:

nytimes.com/2019/06/19/opinion/fac...
Longer version here:
openmarketsinstitute.org/wp-conten...

Oh man that was a devastating read.
Those tech monopolies are run by children that have no ideas what they are doing.
You asked why politicians are afraid by Lira? Well not only politicians, Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, eBay and others have quit Libra. But the reason why politicians are rightfully afraid, is because Facebook might succeed in delivering a global currency with obvious flaws, the kind of flaws for which wars have been fought in the history.

 

Well, those companies have been pushed out by politicians, too. But anyway - since Libra directly affects (threatens) the main business of each of these companies, one could have asked why they wanted to be part of Libra in the first place. Maybe they thought better be part of the competitor that supersedes your business than being pushed out by him.

Libra is dangerous and has flaws, yes. Should we forbid it? Maybe. But what are the alternatives? I mean the technology is here, it's open source, everybody can use it. At least Facebook wants to work together with regulators all over the world to make Libra compliant. If we forbid Libra, there will be a next effort by someone else - and then the initiator might just ignore regulators and governments.

Can we just all agree that a global currency is toxic and should not be introduced? No. There is no global agreement. I mean after the invention of atomic bombs there was no global consensus to just not build them, because they are too dangerous. Of course they have been built. So why should there be a global agreement to not start another effort of introducing a global currency despite all its benefits?

Few things can inflict as much massive pain and suffering to whole countries than a flawed currency.

So to be clear, yes, I hope that Libra will either failed or be forbidden.

To answer to your later point, I think that monetary policies should stay firmly under the control of democratically controlled national institutions.

War is too important to be left to the generals (Clemenceau)

Money is too important to be left to tech companies.

code of conduct - report abuse